Very Sick Health Care System

Check out all the colorful, easy-to-read content at ConnectTheDotsUSA.com

This entry was posted in health care and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

435 Responses to Very Sick Health Care System

  1. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, there is something that causes me significant confusion. Some people claim that single-payer would give government authority over our medical decisions and some people say that government pays for the consultation but leaves everything else to us. Who is right in that regard?

    • Ragnar, I’m quite sure single-payer health care would not give authority to the government over our medical decisions, although the current Supreme Court and many Republicans would be happy with some of that authority over a woman’s medical decisions. Of necessity, there will have to be limits to medical care in order to keep costs under control, but that is not the same as government authority over our health decisions. In other words, No death panels!

  2. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, nobody should be forced to go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Here is a fix that I would like to get your take on: Make prescription medications affordable enough to pay for out-of-pocket and let government pay for the major medical situations with our tax dollars. So it allows some degree of flexibility.

  3. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a video from David Pakman’s show related to the vaccine issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdEGgg_qg4g What David Pakman omits in his argument is that free speech, as protected under the First Amendment, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property as specified under the 5th Amendment and the anti-slavery aspect of the 13th Amendment should render the mandates as invalid.. What also rubs me the wrong way is the hypocrisy of “my body, my choice” being applied to abortion and not being applied to all other medical issues.

  4. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a video from David Pakman’s show related to the vaccine issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdEGgg_qg4g What David Pakman omits in his argument is that free speech, as protected under the First Amendment, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property as specified under the 5th Amendment and the anti-slavery aspect of the 13th Amendment. What also rubs me the wrong way is the hypocrisy of “my body, my choice” being applied to abortion and not being applied to all other medical issues.

  5. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, one thing that I have heard is that in countries with universal health care there are waiting times for elective medical procedures but not for situations that are life-threatening. We do not have universal health care, however, we seem to have a situation where elective medical procedures and legitimate emergencies are met with the same degree of efficiency. Maybe I am missing something.

  6. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I am not an anti-vaccine type person. Quite the opposite. I just don’t believe that vaccines should be imposed upon people by law. If it is established by government decree that people should be forced to submit to any medical experiment or treatment against their will, it violates the rights of people to their bodily autonomy. It also violates the 5th Amendment due to its claims that no person is to be deprived of their lives, their liberties, their property without due process of law.

    “My body, my choice” is thrown around as an argument to justify the legality of abortion. Why not give legitimacy to that argument regarding vaccine refusal or refusal of medical treatment otherwise? The definition of hypocrisy is behaving in opposition to one’s originally stated beliefs. If people say that they believe in the right of bodily autonomy regarding abortion, they can’t logically throw that argument out-the-door regarding people refusing vaccines without being subjected to a charge of hypocrisy. Wanting things both ways is absurd, regardless of the issue at hand.

  7. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I will be sure to thoroughly review any items that I share with you. I asked you to try to look objectively at the Bitchute videos I shared. Yes, I get the fact that many of them have a conspiracy theory component, however, each of the videos I shared did not seem to be conspiratorial to excess. Just my thoughts.

  8. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I cannot find any fault on the part of Kyle Kulinski for his position on the vaccine. He clearly advocates for and supports it, something that I have no issue with personally, however, to his credit, he does not seem to have an authoritarian view on the matter. What really galls me is the matter of how people who speak up about the issues of the harm of the vaccines to them are being dismissed as perpetuating misinformation and disinformation. Just because it did not seem to have hurt some people who took it does not negate the fact that some significant harm has come to other people. What rubs me the wrong way just as much as hearing people who tell their stories being denounced as liars is the fact that the people making the accusations are doing it without having any factual basis to it.

    • Although some people have bad reactions to the vaccine, as acknowledged by the CDC, etc., it doesn’t negate the fact that the vaccine is effective and does considerably more good than harm. If some who are harmed are not believed or called liars is a bad thing. I’m just not aware of these instances of disbelief and dismissal. My guess it is rare but exaggerated by anti-vaxxers. You’ll have to show me when these things happened.

      This is what I feel is a reliable, authoritative source. It would be nice if you read it. It contains verifiable facts and is not pushing an agenda.
      https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I have read and heard a lot on both sides of the matter. What rubs me the wrong way is in the biased reporting of various news outlets who are not willing to look at the actual facts. We disagree on the vaccines, yes, however, your points are more reasoned than those of other people I try to engage with on the subject. My compliments to you for being sensible on this matter.

        • Thank you for the compliment, Ragnar. And my compliments to you for looking at more than one side of an issue. However, I am not comfortable with your statement “What rubs me the wrong way is in the biased reporting of various news outlets who are not willing to look at the actual facts.” Way too vague for me. That could apply to any news outlet. Specific examples would help. And remember, these days facts are often in dispute, and bias often comes into play.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, here is an example for you: 4 people take the Covid-19 vaccines. One person reports no ll-effects, as well as getting confirmation from that person’s primary care physician. One person has a headache for a couple of days and then it passes. One person experiences some memory lapses and the last person has died after the vaccine. CNN has reportedly dismissed legitimate and licensed medical professionals as perpetuating misinformation, even disinformation, which is absurd due to the fact that these people have gone to medical school and are more qualified to discuss these matters than people who just put a spin on it to help their ratings.

  9. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrDyii0P4DU I find it to be reprehensible how nurses are subjected to abuse and being intentionally short staffed by hospitals. Rather than worry about profits, medical facilities should be there for the patients who need the help to take care of their medical necessities. Lack of licensed nurses is not the issue. The issue is that hospitals are not hiring them.

    • That is a serious problem for sure, Ragnar. I like that you got this opinion from the NY Times, a reliable source in my view. 60 Minutes also had an excellent report on this problem last weekend that you may wish to look at. https://youtu.be/EPkcv_2LeVM If you have trouble receiving it, let me know and I’ll find another way of sending it.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I have heard claims that indicate that non-vaccinated people are more likely to get Covid-19 and end up in the hospital than those who have been fully vaccinated. I have heard claims from nurses that indicate that most cases of Covid-19 hospitalizations are those who have been fully vaccinated. Between news networks that say one thing in order to help their ratings, regardless of whether or not they are factual and legitimate medical experts who say another thing, I would gravitate more toward the opinions of medical experts each time. They are not perfect, however, they are more believable than talking heads who report things without checking the validity of the sources.

        • It is with great reluctance that I choose to respond to your comments, Ragnar, because you have already made up your mind about who you want to believe. I believe it is safe to say that the OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS among reliable public health organizations and scientific researchers is that unvaccinated patients are FAR, FAR MORE LIKELY TO DIE than those who have been vaccinated. It is not even close. Statistics prove it.

          Yes Ragnar, there will always be deniers who will say otherwise. They are in the minority and probably enjoy attacking the government and scientists who have all the evidence. Listen to them at your own peril. I think they are dangerous and responsible for innumerable diseases and deaths for convincing some people to avoid vaccinations. Just like their hero Donald Trump who said Covid is a Democratic hoax and downplayed it for a long time, and is responsible for many, many deaths of people who believed him.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I would be less skeptical of the vaccines were it not for so many conflicting stories. To be honest, I had high hopes for the Pfizer vaccine and had honestly been inclined initially toward that one.

          • It is unfortunate, Ragnar. Right now our country is awash in conflicting stories, and not just about Covid vaccines. Many people aren’t sure what the right thing to do is. In many ways it is ruining our country, especially when there is disagreement about facts and reality and truth.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I would like to see therapeutics just as available as the vaccines. Did you ever get to look at the blog I recommended to you?

          • I’m not sure which one you are referring to (you’ve recommended many, Ragnar). I did look at Connect the Dots and thought it to be well-done and with a lot of information and terrific graphics. It also seemed at least mildly progressive. I liked it.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I know he is pro-vaccine, however, I like Kyle Kulinski’s take on the matter. He seems to believe in the vaccines and yet does not want to legislate the matter. Credit to him in regards to the freedom of choice position.

          • I’m okay with what Kulinski is saying. He makes sense.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, the only area in which I disagree with Kyle Kulinski on is the tax issue generally speaking. On the issue of health care, I am somewhere in the middle. I like the idea of Medicare For All, however, the issue is whether or not government will mandate treatments and fine or imprison us over refusal.

  10. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, in terms of my idea of genetic testing to determine the right vaccine for the right people and reviewing the ingredients, it would reduce the potential risk for error in terms of giving the right people the right vaccine. It would also avoid potential for allergic reactions. Something else unrelated to the issue of genetic testing, however, related to the human body, is other underlying conditions.

  11. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, there are some people who claim that those who are non-vaccinated regarding Covid-19 are more likely to be hospitalized than those who are fully vaccinated. I don’t know where that data comes from, however, I call b.s. on that due to nurses giving testimony that most patients who end up in the hospital are those who have been fully vaccinated. Given the fact that nurses and doctors interact with patients under their care, I would be more inclined to believe them when they make reports of this nature than I would people who read news stories that deliberately attempt to discredit medical care providers. News aggregators/reporters who have no medical degrees and no real medical knowledge are full of b.s. when they claim that medical experts are lying about the things that they say and try to find every possible way to debunk their claims.

  12. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, who would you trust with your health: A person who actually makes your good health his or her concern or someone who shifts the goalposts and changes the story regarding vaccines and subsequent boosters who can’t keep his or her story straight?

  13. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, antibody dependent enhancement is something that your preferred sources would be unlikely to talk about, as well as unfairly slanting the situation to make real people who experience real problems look bad. The Bitchute and Brighteon videos I shared tell the truth about the situations people face, not selective propaganda that tells one side and not the other.

    • Once more I will ask you, Ragnar, how can you be sure they are telling the truth? I know you like what they say and want to believe it, but where is the evidence? I’m guessing you just accept what they say because I don’t see any verifiable data or research to back up their claims. Those websites are full of false information and conspiracy theories. If you can’t see that, and choose to accept this garbage, then there is no point in discussing this further. I know you are someone who seeks the truth and you mean well, but you too easily accept the lies on these websites. Maybe there is another issue we can debate, but not Covid and vaccinations.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, by your logic, everything that your preferred sources claim should be true and taken unquestioningly, as well.

        • The difference, Ragnar, which I cannot seem to get you to recognize or understand, is that my sources have a reputation over the course of their career, have been educated in their field, they do research that is peer-reviewed, is confirmed by other experts in their field, is based on verifiable statistics, and is recognized as reliable science. In addition, they have no reason to falsify their findings, and their findings are accepted by medical associations, , nursing groups, major universities, and other respected professional organizations.

  14. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a link for you: https://dianeravitch.net/2021/10/15/the-sad-life-of-an-anti-vaxxer/ The woman who operates this blog would clearly agree with you.

  15. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I would be amenable to the idea of vaccine or test regarding Covid-19 as a problem. It gives people a choice either way. Nobody can argue that they are being forced to get the vaccine and a negative test would basically reveal no sign of the disease. The only other issue is in the hypocrisy of the “my body, my choice” argument on abortion but not giving that argument the same level of legitimacy regarding vaccine refusal. Here are a few questions for you: 1: If “my body, my choice” is seen as a valid argument for abortion, why cannot that argument also be extended to refusal of vaccines? 2: Since nothing is stopping people from going to get the vaccines if they want to, what is the problem with some people refusing the vaccines if they either don’t want them or their Doctors don’t believe it to be a necessity? 3: Given the fact that the FDA and the media are ignoring real people who suffer real harm from the vaccines, how can anything that they say regarding the disease, the vaccines or the therapeutics be taken at face value?

  16. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I am not opposed to vaccines in general. What I object to are vaccine mandates. There is a difference. Voluntarily taking the vaccines I am fine with, however, nobody should be blackmailed into getting a vaccine for any reason with threat to the loss of employment for refusal of vaccine. What I find to be profoundly absurd, even hypocritical, is how “my body, my choice,” which is used to justify the legality of abortion, is essentially rendered invalid regarding refusal of vaccines. Stay out of my body and stay out of my business and leave me alone. Simple as that.

  17. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I am a free thinking and independent minded individual who is capable of making his own decisions. If I wanted the vaccine, regardless of the vaccine manufacturer, that is to be between me and my family and my Doctors. Other than that, if I don’t want it, then it cannot legally be forced upon me against my will. If “my body, my choice” is used to justify abortion, it should be just as applicable to any form of medical procedure or shot, be it the flu shot or anything else that is vaccine-related.

    The mainstream media wanting to blame the unvaccinated for the pandemic not having ended clearly did not get the fact that it is the vaccinated that are flooding the hospitals. People who have isolated themselves and do everything in their power to avoid getting sick are not out there spreading this disease around.

    People who are so intent on forcing the vaccines have not read the Nuremberg Code, which among other things, says that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. If I don’t consent to any vaccines and don’t want them, that is my prerogative.

    If the media was fair, both sides, the pro-vaccine and the anti-vaccine, would get equal airtime. The issue is that people with bad vaccine experiences are ignored and shunned by the FDA and the media.

    • “If the media was fair, both sides, the pro-vaccine and the anti-vaccine, would get equal airtime. The issue is that people with bad vaccine experiences are ignored and shunned by the FDA and the media.”

      Wrong, Ragnar. The pro-vaccine side has facts and statistics and reputable, expert scientists on their side. The anti-vaccination side lacks these things and emphasizes anecdotal reports and misinformation from people who believe in anti-government theories, hate speech and conspiracies.

      Sorry, but that is how it looks to me.

  18. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, one of the lines in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no people are to be deprived of their lives, their liberties, their property without due process of law. Since I own my body and decide what goes into it, mandating that I take a vaccine that I don’t want is infringing upon my right to bodily autonomy. I also find it to be convoluted that “my body, my choice” is used to justify the legality of abortion and yet gets thrown out regarding refusal of new and untested vaccines.

  19. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, people who accuse other people of spreading misinformation or disinformation without credible evidence are just deflecting from the fact that they themselves are engaging in it. If someone said something provably false, e.g. drinking regular coffee at night will help sleep, it could be from someone who has been misinformed and reported that claim in error or from people who want to intentionally dupe people into drinking regular coffee at night.

    • I suppose you are right that spreading misinformation is a bad thing. My views are backed by reputable facts and figures and sources. I never seem to read credible, objective evidence from you on the disinformation you present. If I did find some, I would be more likely to believe them.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, a hypothetical scenario: Someone took one of the vaccines and had a very bad reaction to it. The person lived to tell about it, however, the reaction was quite bad. Who would you believe about that: The person who told the story and the physician in charge of the medical care of the person or the media?

    • I tend to think “people who accuse other people of spreading misinformation or disinformation without credible evidence” are pointing out something necessary and obvious. Who needs misinformation or disinformation anyway. I don’t.

  20. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, threats to livelihoods of medical care providers whose purpose is to ensure and protect the good health of people under their care over refusal of untested vaccines rubs me the wrong way. The same holds true for people who refuse the vaccines being asked persistently by their doctors about their vaccination status. Nurses are also forbidden to answer any questions about the Covid-19 vaccines. Why is that? Probably because of threats to have their licenses revoked.

  21. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if someone tells a story in his or her own words or speaks on behalf of a family member who cannot tell his or her side of the story regarding a vaccine induced health issue and that is passed off as being untrue, how can the people who judge it as being untrue know? They were not there, so how do they know?

    • I don’t believe anyone was not allowed to tell their story about bad reactions to a COVID vaccine. Do you have any documentation to verify that claim?

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, in each of the Bitchute videos I shared, all of which seemed to be true insofar as I know, no lies or discrepancies were present. To be fair, each person who took the vaccine and had favorable experiences should be allowed to express those. But saying that bad experiences being reported is misinformation, even disinformation, is dishonest.

        • The problem as I see it, Ragnar, is that you are willing to take at face value what you are told. That is not acceptable to me. You could be being lied to, but you have no way of knowing. I like to verify my information. I suggest you do the same. These kind of websites are notorious for lying: Donald Trump had his 2020 election stolen, January 6 was no big deal, etc.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I find it to be rather absurd that people have a confirmation bias to the extreme on both sides of the vaccine issue and refuse to look at the other people’s experiences also. Example: 2 people each take the Pfizer vaccine and 1 person has a worse reaction than the other person. Is it worth brushing off the person who has a bad experience as a liar if the problems were also noted by legitimate medical experts?

          • Once again, Ragnar, you accept whatever you read or hear from your websites without verification. I don’t believe the brushing off as a liar story. The websites you frequent seem to be full of baseless conspiracies and misinformation.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, with all due respect, you have it completely wrong. Mainstream media sources are only telling stories that make major pharmaceutical companies look good, essentially having the stories slanted and disregarding real suffering that people have post-vaccines.

          • That’s a serious charge, but I have seen no evidence to support your statement. So I reject it as disinformation based on opinions rather than objective, verified evidence.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, your preferred sources only like to relay the stories of people who have had favorable experiences with the vaccines. The rest don’t seem to matter to them. Why is it that people who tell favorable stories get the spotlight and people who report bad experiences are shunned?

          • And the evidence to support your claim…..?

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, my evidence comes from people who tell their stories in their own words. If the media was fair and unbiased in its reporting, more people would speak up.

          • And the evidence to support this claim…….?

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, vaccine hesitancy seems to stem from many contradictory stories. The vaccine manufacturers know about the issue of graphene hydroxide as well.

          • Could it be that these statements are nothing more than opinions from people prone to be anti-government and conspiracy minded? I want evidence, facts, objective and verifiable information before I accept it.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, the Bitchute videos I shared are those that reveal everything. Look at more of them when you have time.

  22. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I would rather let my immune system take care of all possible illnesses than subject my body to untested vaccines or therapies with no prior FDA-approved status. Unproven and untested medicines, such as the current Covid-19 vaccines, should have been studied more thoroughly than being pushed through in a panic and fear-based response.

  23. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the FDA, the CDC and Anthony Fauci keep shifting the goalposts regarding the masks, vaccines and subsequent boosters and are not giving us straight stories. People like Anthony Fauci make Alex Jones, a crackpot in his own way, seem sane and rational by comparison.

    • I hope you understand, Ragnar, that there are no permanent, absolute answers about Covid. These are new and evolving viruses. Scientists are learning as they go along.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, point stipulated, however, I would find people like Simone Gold, Peter McCullough, Stella Immanuel, Del Matthew Bigtree, Pierre Kory, Vladimir Zelenko, Joseph Mercola, Sherri Tenpenny and Sucharit Bhakdi to be more credible than Anthony Fauci on this matter. Gain of function research, which Anthony Fauci was involved in, contributed to this pandemic, not just the Chinese Communist Party.

        • I decided to do some research on some of the people you name. Here is what I found:
          Simone Gold
          **Simone Melissa Gold[3] (née Tizes)[4] is an American physician, attorney,[2] author, and the founder of America’s Frontline Doctors, an American right-wing political organization known for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.[5][6][7] She gained attention when a video of an America’s Frontline Doctors press conference in front of the US Supreme Court Building went viral in July 2020.[1][8] She has commented on the COVID-19 vaccine: “[w]e doctors are pro-vaccine, but this is not a vaccine.”[9]
          **Search domain examiner-enterprise.comhttps://www.examiner-enterprise.com › story › news › 2021 › 10 › 06 › doctor-fired-baylor-spreading-covid-19-misinformation-finds-supportive-crowd-bartlesville › 5995698001
          those gathered, including gop and public officials, nurses, pharmacists and other concerned citizens, gave standing ovations during the presentation of dr. peter mccullough, a dallas cardiologist who is largely discredited by the scientific community for his assertions that the covid-19 vaccines are unsafe and that early treatment options have …
          **Stella Immanuel, a doctor at the centre of a controversy over unproven and potentially dangerous claims that an anti-malaria drug can treat Covid-19, is no stranger to conspiracy theories.
          Facebook and Twitter have taken down the viral video in which she appears, saying it violates their policies about misinformation – but not before it was retweeted by Donald Trump and one of his sons.
          The US president defended himself, saying he found Dr Immanuel, who was born in Cameroon and is based in the Texan city of Houston, “very impressive”.
          “She said that she had tremendous success with hundreds of different patients, I thought her voice was an important voice but I know nothing about her,” he said on Tuesday.
          Dr Immanuel, who is also a Christian pastor, gave a speech on the steps of the US Supreme Court in Washington, captured in a video first published by right-wing website Breitbart on Monday.

          That’s all I have time for, Ragnar. But I think you get the idea. Those people are basically quacks, in my opinion. But you apparently are willing to believe them, anyway.

  24. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, Covid-19 as a disease is deadly. I will not dispute that. The problem is that the FDA and the media are stifling people and not allowing them to get across their side of the story. People who claim that reports of bad experiences with the vaccines are lying have not actually gotten the side of the story of the people who took the vaccines.

    • I understand, Ragnar, that you believe that the government and media are covering up the bad effects from the COVID vaccine. But I need to ask you: how do you know that to be true? Have you done any verification or investigation of the information you read? Are the sources you use for information established with long records of accurate claims. I don’t believe the government or media have any good reason to prevent claims of bad reactions to the vaccine. I think the sources you use have agendas to push and profits to make from people who enjoy unproven conspiracies involving the government.

      I suggest you read this fact check from USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/05/fact-check-1-million-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-events-unverified/9103381002/

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, in one Bitchute video I shared, a devastated Father was telling the story of his 16 year old son 5 days after the Pfizer injection. That grief seemed to be sincere.

        • I don’t doubt the sincerity of what you saw. I’m sure it happens. But the frequency it happens is far less than bad vaccinations, I’m sure. The CDC keeps track of these kind of reactions, and will keep working on fixing those problems. I doubt that health officials stopped him from telling his story. Bottom line: the dangers of vaccination shots, though serious for some, are far less than the millions affected by the Covid virus. The vaccinations have been proven to work successfully in reducing symptoms and death. What more do you need to know?

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, if therapeutics, which predate the vaccines were not frowned upon, the therapeutics could have been more than adequate to deal with the situation. You asked me how you can objectively look at my sources, Bitchute being one, objectively when they deal in conspiracy theories. While I have no doubt that many of them do just that, the videos I shared are those where people told their stories in their own words or had other people speaking on their behalf. Here are 3 questions for you being asked in all sincerity: 1: Whose word would you take on the matter of adverse vaccine reactions: Actual medical experts who witness firsthand the vaccine-related injuries or news reporters who have not seen these problems personally who lie about the stories for their own purposes? 2: Since therapeutics predate the vaccines, why should they get frowned upon since they are just as beneficial? 3: While it is applicable to either situation, why is “my body, my choice” an acceptable argument for the legality of abortion and not regarding refusal of vaccines? If I want the vaccine, which I don’t at this time, taking it or not should be of my own free will.

  25. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the only vaccine I cannot safely take is the Pertussis vaccine for whooping cough because of my having Epilepsy. Having said that, I am all in favor of its being available to people who can safely take it. For me, as I said, I am not anti-vaccine in most cases. The only exception is for those that are hastily rushed and made available before proper trials in order to verify safety factors. Hypothetical scenario: A family of 4 takes each of the 4 known vaccines as recommended because of different health considerations. They all tolerate them quite well, however, some side-effects affect 1 or 2 people and not the other 2. Given that scenario, who would you believe: The story of the family members and the doctor who made the report or the media that said it did not happen?

  26. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I have heard numerous stories, both good and bad, associated with the various vaccines. If I had to pick 2 that I was the least skeptical of, I would say that they are the Johnson&Johnson or the Pfizer vaccine. I am not badmouthing Astrazeneca or Moderna, however, the 2 that I mentioned being the least skeptical of are the first two.

  27. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a link for you from the FDA related to the Pfizer vaccine: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-emergency-use-children-5-through-11-years-age This talks about people between the ages of 5 and 11, however, the Pfizer vaccine did seem like a viable one in my opinion initially.

    • Arlen Grossman says:

      I appreciate a link from a reputable source., Ragnar. Is there a reason you sent it?

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        I was doing some research related to the Pfizer vaccine. If you took another vaccine for Covid-19, you can disregard this link, however, until recent stories came about related to some problems with the Pfizer vaccine, the Pfizer vaccine was the one that I was the least skeptical of.

  28. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if Dr. Anthony Fauci had nothing to hide, he should come clean and release all records related to Gain Of Function research. Back to the vaccines, if they are so safe and effective, can it logically be explained why some people are dead or otherwise permanently injured after taking the vaccines? Post-vaccine paralysis? Vaccine-induced heart problems? Death? What will it take to get people to wake up and realize the harm that the vaccines have caused? This attitude of “It did not harm me, so it must be safe” is presumptuous and highly arrogant.

    • I don’t like saying this, but I am disappointed in you, Ragnar. You really don’t get it. I have no doubt you read about the dangers of Covid vaccines and send them to me as fact. .You seem to accept as fact what you read, and don’t question it..

      Most of what you claim to be true (because you read it) are lies and misinformation. I can say this because I check a number of respected sources (government, universities, science magazines, etc) who dispute most of what you read. Do you do the research and fact check what your sources say? I would venture to guess you just accept without question what you read because you want to believe them.
      I provide links from reputable sources for you to look at. You never do the same for me..

      My suggestions to you: FACT CHECK, DO SOME RESEARCH, CHECK SEVERAL REPUTABLE SOURCES, BE OPEN-MINDED. Most of what you say is not true and can’t be verified. You once told me vaccines cause more death than the Covid-19 virus. That is absurd! Over 800,000 Americans have died from the Covid virus. If you think that many people died from vaccines, you are naive.

      In the future, Ragnar. don’t send me information on this subject without verification from other reputable sources. If you don’t question what you read and don’t fact check the claims yourself, then forget it. It isn’t worth my time. I don’t think I can make myself any clearer.

  29. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, is it morally right or justifiable to democratically vote to violate one’s right to bodily autonomy and independence by dictating to them that they have to take vaccines that they don’t want? One of the lines in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Since there are no laws that dictate that we have to get any vaccines, people who decry those who refuse to get the vaccine as being responsible for the pandemic being perpetuated are full of b.s. and have no clue as to what they talk about.

    No one can force an experimental drug into any one’s body without their full consent according to the Nuremberg Code. If I consent to be a test subject related to new medical technology, that is my prerogative.

    • As I said before, Ragnar, you are only concerned with your personal freedom and apparently don’t care about the consequences to everybody else in the country. In other words, refusal to vaccinate makes it easier for the virus to spread and mutate.

      It is well established that the vaccine has been tested and works and is safe. If you choose to listen to dangerous, right-wing, racist sources who lack official statistics but have plenty of opinions, I clearly can’t discourage you.
      Good luck.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, for some people it has worked and some people it has not worked. Are you willing to play Russian Roulette or gamble with the health and well-being of a person with unforeseen medical complications?

  30. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, you said, “But of more concern to me are the millions of Americans who refused to get vaccinated because of lies and misinformation from “experts” who should know better.” Try the “misinformation or disinformation” line of argument with people who witness firsthand the adverse after-effects that are post-vaccination. This whole “Unvaccinated people are more likely to die or end up in the hospitals” line of argument is b.s., plain and simple. If people self-isolate and take their daily multivitamins and have regular activity and good exercise regimen and take care of their immune system health, they are less likely to get sick and end up in the hospital. If “my body, my choice” is used as an argument to justify the legality of abortion, that argument should be equally as valid on the vaccine issues.

    Here are 3 questions for you: 1: If “my body, my choice” is used to justify abortions and it is argued that bans on abortion are a violation of bodily autonomy, why is that argument not given any validity regarding refusing the vaccines? 2: Why can’t politicians just shut up about the vaccine mandates and let people make their decisions either way with the input of their medical care providers? 3: If refusal of some people to wear masks or get vaccinated makes other people uncomfortable, why don’t they just respect that decision and let people be left alone?

    • The differences between you and me, Ragnar, boil down to this: individual choice and freedom are your priority. I am more concerned with a healthy society, in which the most people are helped. That is a very important philosophical difference and applies to many of the issues that we disagree about, gun control comes quickly to mind. You say “Unvaccinated people are more likely to die or end up in the hospitals” line of argument is b.s.,”  That is where you lose me. Most respected sources say differently, but you want to  believe people who believe like you do. The evidence is not on your side, so you choose not to believe it. Refusal to vaccinate and wear masks hurts others and causes the virus to spread. We know this because places that are the least vaccinated and where residents don’t wear masks consistently are the places with the most Covid cases. That’s why people like me are bothered when others don’t wear masks or vaccinate. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-covid-surge-shows-overwhelming-cost-of-being-unvaccinated-america/https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/1064011230/as-unvaccinated-covid-19-patients-pack-colorado-hospitals-anger-growsIf you don’t believe that, please provide evidence otherwise. I’d like to see it.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I believe in fully informed consent and freedom of choice. I am not arguing the point about “my body, my choice” on vaccines or abortion. Having said that, it is disingenuous, even hypocritical, when people say, “Keep your laws out of my body” on abortion and yet having no problem on mandating a purely experimental vaccine.

        • Ragnar:I strongly suggest you read this: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/myths-vs-facts-covid-19-vaccine/?fbclid=IwAR129pc3t6WN69UbcSpYFy0y8y6tnvRZJNyUIUAM6vvI0n9SvFLVO6Ay95g

          I understand the issue about abortions and vaccinations is important to you. I see them as two different and distinct circumstances. Banning abortions is far more significant (affects the entire life and future of two people) while vaccinations (no, they are not experimental) have not been proven to be so terribly dangerous (with some exceptions, I’m sure). The report from Boston University makes that perfectly clear. I suggest you rely on credible, respected sources (not right-wing, conspiracy-oriented, racist and anti-Semitic ones) in my humble opinion.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, while it can be correctly argued that abortion and vaccine mandates are different issues in entirety, it makes no sense to me why “my body, my choice” as an argument has more validity on abortion than not wanting vaccines because of them being new and untested.

          • You lose me, Ragnar, when you say vaccines are “new and untested.” Read the report from Boston University https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/myths-vs-facts-covid-19-vaccine/?fbclid=IwAR129pc3t6WN69UbcSpYFy0y8y6tnvRZJNyUIUAM6vvI0n9SvFLVO6Ay95g

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, before the current pandemic, none of the vaccines for said pandemic seemed to be in existence. The companies, yes, however, not the vaccines for our current pandemic.

          • I find it hard to understand why you accept as fact the false claims you read from sources that I’ve shown give you inaccurate information. Why do you accept their claims as fact? Do you fact check their claims? Or do you just accept what they say because they agree with you? You say vaccines are “new and untested.” Of course they are new. They were developed precisely to prevent the new Covid-19 virus. Secondlyis a lie to say the vaccines are “untested.” As this article from John Hopkins explains, the vaccines were thoroughly tested. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe Or read this fact check from Reuters: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe Bottom line, Ragnar: Do your best to not send me false information without at least trying to verify whether there is any truth to them. It seems clear to me you don’t fact check the lies you read on your off-the-wall websites or wherever you get your “information.” I’m sorry to be so blunt, Ragnar, but I wish you would be a little more critical of your information sources. My guess is they have an agenda, and make money telling falsehoods. Or at least show me where you have verified the information they tell you. I’m quite sure you won’t get very far.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, watch more of the Bitchute videos I shared. Listen to each of them very carefully and you will understand why I think the way that I do.

  31. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here are a few videos from your preferred sources: 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S93rXqa5SVc, 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJeN2wA-03Y, 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyMEZB6KycY, 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewe5nYfXS1M I am not anti-vaccine in most cases. The only exception is for those that are hastily rushed and made available before proper trials in order to verify safety factors.

    • That is a legitimate concern, Ragnar, but of more concern to me are the millions of Americans who refused to get vaccinated because of lies and misinformation from “experts” who should know better.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, that may be true, however, here are 3 questions for you: Of the 4 known vaccines, I.E. Pfizer, Moderna, Astrazeneca and Johnson & Johnson, is it possible that the people who had adverse reactions to each one got the wrong vaccines because of unanticipated preexisting medical problems? 2: Which vaccine were you the least skeptical of personally? 3: What can be done to mitigate some of the reported harmful effects for people who do take the vaccines?

  32. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, my information about Covid-19 and the so-called vaccines and other therapeutics comes from Stella Immanuel, Sherri Tenpenny, Vladimir Zelenko, Pierre Kory, Del Matthew Bigtree, Robert W. Malone, Peter A. McCullough, Judy Mikovitz and Joseph Mercola. I am hardly an anti-vaccine type. Where I put myself in that regard is just wanting all available information on the subject so an informed conclusion can be drawn.

    Now, if the vaccine companies came out and said that they required time to research and develop the vaccines before being made available to the public at large and also to make sure that they were safe, I would be willing to believe that. The issue is the right vaccine for the right person. What rubs me the wrong way is the hypocrisy of the “my body, my choice” crowd on abortion and yet that argument is invalid regarding not wanting to be forced to take a vaccine against one’s will?

    I ask you to look objectively at the Bitchute videos I have shared. Take what bias you may have off the table and actually listen to each story in each video. Listen to what doctors in the videos say. Some nurses are being actively threatened with loss of employment for refusal to go with the vaccine mandate policy.

    • How can I look objectively at a source that peddles conspiracies (including those from Alex Jones), hate, anti-semitism and racism. And so many of their scientific theories have been discredited. I don’t doubt that many of those who tell their stories believe what they say. But many of them enjoy the fame, money and attention they get confirming each other.

      And I’m tired of the emphasis on “freedom” over sickness and health. We have a health crisis and hundreds of thousands of Americans are dying. Those who don’t vaccinate are putting themselves and everyone else at risk. Freedom is great, but it should not be more important than someone else’s life.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, one Bitchute video has the title CRISIS IN AMERICA: MILLIONS OF NURSES ARE RESIGNING OR BEING FIRED OVER COVID VACCINE MANDATES. If there are nurses that walk away from their chosen profession over mandates, there must be something that they are seeing that causes them alarm.

        • Could it be that many read the same things you do, Ragnar? That may be one reason. Keep in mind that nurses are alarmed for many reasons besides mandates. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/11/the-mass-exodus-of-americas-health-care-workers/620713/

          By the way, Ragnar, I commend you for looking deeper into your beliefs and sticking with our conversation. After all the awful things I’ve said about your sources, you are willing to keep the dialog open. A lot of people wouldn’t.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, maybe we could compromise on something. How about this: If I look at and share with you a few videos from some of your preferred sources, will you also indulge me if I find something that I believe to be worthwhile, regardless of its source, with the possible exception of Alex Jones?

          • I am not adverse to the idea, Ragnar, but I would have to see what kind of material you send. By the way, I’ve heard some experts make the point that anti-vaxers are causing people to die because they are too afraid to get vaccinations. I believe there is truth to that.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I have heard contradictory stories on the matter of the vaccines. Example: Some people take and tolerate the vaccines quite well and report it in their own words and some people are put through hell and report it in their own words or have other people speak on their behalf. The issue is who to hold accountable if things go wrong: Pharmaceutical companies, vaccine manufacturers or the MD who recommended it.

          • There is a more important issue than something going wrong with vaccines, Ragnar. Vaccines are certain not perfect, there are always going to be some who don’t react well. What is more important is the overwhelming view of experts that those who are vaccinated do far better than those who don’t.  Those who are vaccinated rarely have serious issues, but the evidence is clear that unvaccinated people have worst cases of Covid, end up in the hospital more often and die more frequently. That is undeniable.  I am happy I was able to get polio vaccines as a child, as were millions of others.Vaccines have wiped out many diseases and are a blessing to most of the world.Of course, if you choose to be paranoid and fearful that the government is out to get you, you have that right. But it should be clear by now that quite a number of deaths would have been avoided if people didn’t listen to the conspiracy community, and respected the scientific community more. Who should be responsible for the inevitable bad outcomes for some people is not my concern. If the government, manufacturers of the vaccines, or medical doctors are aware of the scientific research, and are trying to save lives (and are not negligent), that’s good enough for me.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, a hypothetical scenario for you: A family of 4 (or more) each has different medical issues and by default has different vaccine requirements. What would it mean if they each tolerated the vaccines for their respective needs, however, if they all took the same one that the effects of one was a significant issue for 3 but not the one that said vaccine was recommended for?

          • Now you’re overdoing these scenarios, Ragnar. It sounds like you just don’t trust government and vaccines, and are looking for ways to cause problems and issues. The bottom line is that vaccines are helpful and a good thing, at least most qualified medical professionals would say that. The resistance to vaccines, in my opinion, is causing illness and death. That’s not good.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, you got this all wrong. Question for you: Before Anthony Fauci involved himself in gain of function research, where was Covid-19?

  33. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I would ask you to consider looking at a few of the Bitchute videos I shared. If you do that and still decide to stay with your original position, more power to you. You don’t have to watch them all, however, I think that there are details in each one that the FDA and the media deliberately omit in order to please their base and to not want the companies to get a bad rap, which they deserve in my opinion.

    • Ragnar, did it ever occur to you Bitchute is the source that lies and promotes disinformation? A little bit of research brings up a number of articles that call out the hate and inaccuracy of this source you seem to rely on.

      Based on what I’ve learned about Bitchute it would be a waste of my time to read or watch anything of theirs. Take a look at these critiques and you will understand why I want no part of Bitchute and its right-wing brotherhood.
      https://www.adl.org/blog/bitchute-a-hotbed-of-hate?fbclid=IwAR2
      https://mashable.com/article/what-is-bitchute
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute

      Sorry, but I am disappointed in you, Ragnar, as I thought you were discerning enough to recognize that to these folks truth and facts have the lowest priorities, but lies and hate take top priority.

      I imagine some of your other conservative outlets may sing the praises of these extremists. Objective background checking goes a long way, Ragnar. You may want to try it.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, you got this all wrong. Tell people who suffered from vaccine-related injuries or deaths that it was not due to the vaccines. Tell their family members and see what happens.

        • Sadly, it appears you have been drinking the kool-aid, Ragnar. Did you read the links about Bitchute I sent you? Bitchute is making things up, and make lots of money and gets a lot of attention for it’s hate and conspiracy views.. Please, Ragnar, go to reliable sources not crazy conspiracy ones.

          https://www.whec.com/news/fact-check-covid-vaccine-deaths-/6141835/
          https://www.newsweek.com/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-pfizer-moderna-fact-check-966-died-1574447
          https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaers-rival-idUSL2N2O01XU

          Bottom line, Ragnar, is that if some people died from the vaccine, it pales in comparison to the 800,000+ American deaths from Covid. That’ s all you need to know.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I mean no disrespect, however, your sources are non-credible. I get my information from people in their own words or from medical care providers also in their own words. If both parties report seeing disturbing after-effects, that is all the information I need. People who pass it off as misinformation, even disinformation, which is absurd, get their information from people with a pro-vaccine agenda.

          • Ragnar, it is clear to me we’ve gone about as far as we can with this. We both listen to different sources with different opinions. I think we need to end this topic, and move forward with others. Take care, Arlen

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I was not implying that you are without credibility. Just your preferred sources. I will get my advice from legitimate medical experts, not politicians who have a “you have to do as we say” mentality, which is rather absurd because they get our paychecks from us.

          • I’m curious, Ragnar, did you read the links I sent you? It doesn’t appear that you did. Unless you are fine with this: “Since launching, BitChute has accommodated far-right groups and individuals.[a] The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote in 2019 that the site hosts “hate-fueled material”, the Anti-Defamation League wrote in 2020 that “BitChute has become a hotbed for violent, conspiratorial and hate-filled video propaganda, and a recruiting ground for extremists”, and Bellingcat wrote in 2021 that the platform was “rife with racism and hate speech”.[11][12][14] According to a 2020 report from anti-extremism group Hope not Hate, BitChute “actively promotes” content which was removed from other platforms as hate speech. Hope not Hate also documented videos hosted on BitChute supporting or produced by terrorists groups, including ISIS and the neo-Nazi groups National Action and Atomwaffen Division.”–Wikipedia You say you rely on  “legitimate medical experts.” How do you know that? Who decided they were experts? Why are their credentials? I rely not on politicians but on every legitimate public health organization: the CDC, the FDA,  Health Resources and Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, American Public Health Agency, every medical school that I know of, the governments of Canada and every country in Europe. I could go on and on but you get the idea. I know I can’t convince you otherwise, Ragnar, but think about this: who stands to profit financially from their beliefs? Government agencies, medical schools, universities,  foreign governments?  Or perhaps the anti-vax authors and organizations? I’d like you to think about that.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I have read the links. You don’t have to watch all of the videos I sent, however, if you will be willing to look over a few of them, we could have a more intelligent and well-informed discussion.

          • Against my better judgement, Ragnar. I looked at a couple of your video links so I could see what you were talking about. You are not going to like my opinion of what I learned. I am very disturbed at what I found. A lot of paranoia, conspiracy theories, hate, pro-Trump propaganda, tolerance of anti-semitism and racism runs through this organization. The science is mostly bogus and unverifiable. The science behind the anti-vaccine movement has been discredited by all kinds of experts.

            https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/sherri-tenpenny/covid-19-vaccine-does-not-cause-death-autoimmune-d/

            https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-health-coronavirus-idUSL2N2N72CS

            From Wikipedia: “Since launching, BitChute has accommodated far-right groups and individuals.[a] The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote in 2019 that the site hosts “hate-fueled material”, the Anti-Defamation League wrote in 2020 that “BitChute has become a hotbed for violent, conspiratorial and hate-filled video propaganda, and a recruiting ground for extremists”, and Bellingcat wrote in 2021 that the platform was “rife with racism and hate speech”.[11][12][14] According to a 2020 report from anti-extremism group Hope not Hate, BitChute “actively promotes” content which was removed from other platforms as hate speech. Hope not Hate also documented videos hosted on BitChute supporting or produced by terrorists groups, including ISIS and the neo-Nazi groups National Action and Atomwaffen Division.[7][13] A June 2020 report from British Jewish group Community Security Trust said that some terrorist videos had been on the site for over a year, and that BitChute only removes this content when forced to.[8][28] An academic analysis published in July 2020 using a data set gathered in 2019 over five months found that BitChute had more hate speech than Gab, but less than 4chan. It found that only a small group of channels on the network had any meaningful engagement, almost all of which pushed conspiracy- and hate-laden content. Like the research from Hope not Hate, this analysis found content promoting the Atomwaffen Division posted to BitChute, including a recruitment video.[15]” And if all this isn’t enough, Alex Jones is popular on Bitchute. Surely you must be aware the guy is a lunatic. I understand I can’t convince you that you have been victimized by an odd bunch of conspiracy and hate followers. But I am totally convinced that you have been. My question for you, Ragnar, is did you do any independent research on Bitchute ahead of time  that convinced you that they are on the level? Or did you just believe everything you read there because they sounded sure of themselves? Are you not aware, Ragnar, that almost all those hospitalized or killed from Covid-19 are unvaccinated?I am 72 years old and came up with a positive test for Covid this week. But I have been vaccinated and had a booster shot. I am asymptomatic, feeling fine, and grateful I had been vaccinated. I’m sorry, Ragnar. There is no way we could have an intelligent and well-informed discussion on this topic based on the misinformation, racism, anti-semitism  and questionable scientific conclusions from your sources.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I also have some things I look at despite what my better judgement tells me. I did not detect any antisemitism in any of the videos.

          • Clearly you are not seeing all their videos, Ragnar. . Google “bitchute and anti-semitism” and see what you find. I found quite a few examples. By the way, seeing as you seem to be a good person and not a troll, I will, without hesitation, wish you a Happy New Year.  I don’t expect 2022 to be a good year, but I hope I’m wrong.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I am not anti-Semitic, if that is what your concern is. I just like to examine all angles and make up my own mind as to the validity of some things.

          • I am sure you are not antisemitic, Ragnar. But I hope you would take a second look at websites that traffic in that and other hate, and crazy conspiracy theories. I would cross such websites off my list and would question why such websites always seem to contain vaccine information that appeals to you.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, the only thing I am looking for is the truth. Even if there are contradictory stories, if each story is honest in its own way, that is all that matters.

          • Ragnar, I personally avoid sources who promote conspiracies and hate platforms. They are not people I would listen to. And I have questions about some of the “facts” presented. They are often untrue and inaccurate, even if the author claims to be qualified. Some just like to get attention, and don’t care if people are hurt. I’ve been around a long time, and like to think I am pretty accurate about what is and isn’t bullshit.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, related to that point, who would you trust more: A politician without a medical degree or someone like Peter McCullough, an MD, who talks about stuff like this?

          • You must mean this quack?  https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93936

            I’ll listen to a politician if he seeks information from respected scientific sources, over a credentialed doctor who doesn’t.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Peter McCullough is not a quack.

          • Ragnar, what makes you so sure Peter McCollough is not a quack? Do you have medical training? Have you done research on some of his claims? What is your basis for saying he is not a quack, when there is so much evidence that he is? I know he is intelligent and educated, but he still promotes misinformation and false claims.  https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/586457-give-me-liberty-and-give-you-death https://www.examiner-enterprise.com/story/news/2021/10/06/doctor-fired-baylor-spreading-covid-19-misinformation-finds-supportive-crowd-bartlesville/5995698001/

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, if he is easy to discredit regarding all of the claims he has made, why are people who try to not presenting factual evidence in their favor?

          • Clearly, Ragnar, there is nothing I can do to persuade you that Dr. McAuliffe and his ilk aren’t telling the truth. The evidence is out there, but you have to be open to receive it.I suspect also, we will continue to read these things too: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-03/kelly-ernby-former-republican-assembly-candidate-and-deputy-d-a-dies-of-covid-19 Good luck.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, your preferred sources that label Peter McCullough and other people like him as liars are the real liars.

          • And you are sure of that because…..why? What are your credentials to determine that, Ragnar? Is it possible your sources are wrong? How can you be so sure of what you believe? Why are so many unvaccinated people and vaccine deniers hospitalized and dying? By the way, I have almost unlimited data from respected agencies and experts with lots of experience and with long track records of accuracy. Far more than you. That is why I am confident in what I say. But be my guest. Believe what you want to believe. You’ve made up your mind, so good luck with that.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I look at every possible angle. If someone says the vaccine that was taken put that person through all sorts of hell, I would be inclined to give legitimacy to that person’s claims. To be fair, if there were more successes than failures, I would be less skeptical of the situation.

          • I believe it is fair to say there are considerably more lives saved by vaccines than there are problems from taking them. And those who refuse to take vaccines are more likely to get bad side effects from the virus than those who don’t vaccinate.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I know of your disdain for Bitchute, however, it seems to me that the mainstream media and the FDA are ignoring real people with real problems. They try to speak up but nobody seems to want to listen.

          • Did it ever occur to you, Ragnar, that the anti-vaxers are the same people that try to convince you the 2020 election was stolen, or that January 6 was no big deal?  Give that some thought…..

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, without proof one way or the other, I am dubious of such claims. I just prefer to hear people’s stories in their own words and make up my own mind. Example: If 2 people took the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine and one had multiple issues, no permanent problems, however, a few, however, the other person had absolutely no problems, I would take both claims at face value as long as both parties were being honest. Just my thoughts.

          • I would say, sure, Ragnar, we can believe people’s stories about problems with the vaccination.  Those are anecdotal stories and likely true and others may have had the same problem. However, the problem is projecting that as typical of the whole country. Covid vaccines, in general, are saving lives every day with numbers far exceeding those with bad vaccine experiences. To scare and misinform people–as sleazy conspiracy, hate websites like Bitchute like to do–is a whole other matter. It also prevents us from fixing the problems of more and more variants. In my mind, Bitchute and its ilk are cruel and evil, and deserve no respect.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, a hypothetical scenario: If someone takes one of the vaccines and has significant ill-effects, not lethal, however, quite a few issues, should they have grounds to sue the vaccine companies for damages incurred?

          • I don’t know. I haven’t given it any thought, and it avoids the important issues. Why is it important to you, Ragnar? ,

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, the premise was in how vaccine companies should be liable for injuries incurred by the people who took them.

          • I understand, Ragnar. But it is a minor issue in a national crisis and ignores the fact that anti-vaxers are discouraging people from  getting vaccinated, and thus are responsible for untold numbers of sickness and death. And all for the purpose of politically hurting Democrats and President Biden. Just like Trumpian Republicans completely stayed away or lied today about the January 6 insurrection despite all the video and other documented proof.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I am not saying this about you specifically, however, people who chant “my body, my choice” on abortion and yet throw that argument out the door regarding bodily autonomy insofar as vaccines are concerned are hypocrites.

          • I see it differently, Ragnar. Choice about arbortion is different than a vaccine mandate. There is no evidence of great danger by requiring a vaccine. In reality, it is a public health issue and affects everybody else.Contrast that with abortion restrictions which forces a woman to deliver a baby, even one that is a result of rape or incest. I see a big difference.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, point stipulated, however, the principle is essentially the same. If people want to complain that bans on abortion constitute a violation of bodily autonomy, that same logic should extend to vaccines being mandated.

  34. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, due to my having Epilepsy, I am ineligible for the Pertussis vaccine. I am not opposed to that vaccine being available for people who can truly benefit from that vaccine. Regarding the Covid-19 vaccine mandates, I do not believe that people should face threats to employment over being disinclined to take any of the Covid-19 vaccines. The fact that some people are willing to leave health care as a chosen profession because of threats of the loss of medical licenses if there is refusal to take the vaccines due to concerns about its safety is reprehensible.

    The CDC and the media are unfairly and inaccurately reporting stories associated with the vaccines, bringing up favorable events and experiences and disregarding people who tell horror stories about their experiences. It is selective cherry-picking to put on one set of stories and not another, even if they are both true.

    Rather than shoving vaccine mandates, which are Unconstitutional, by the way, down our throats, let each person make his or her own decision with the input of a medical care provider. I would also allow more freedom for the families to launch lawsuits against these manufacturers if there are vaccine-related injuries or deaths.

    Vaccine or test I have no problem if both are options are voluntary. If someone, be it a physician or just a concerned patient, asks for an appointment to do a test for the disease and they are Covid-19 negative, that should be enough to convince people that the person is safe.

  35. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if there is one thing that has been proven time and time again, it is that government destroys all that it touches. If it is declared that health care is a right and there are no medical care facilities, no doctors to take care of the patients who need help, that right cannot be legitimately enforceable.

    We have the issue of licensing for people who want to pursue medical careers, as well as pretty much everything else. Licensing in regards to medical care is basically a roundabout way of giving government control of our health care instead of letting each person deal with his or her own medical issues with the input of medical care providers along the way.

  36. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, this may seem very blunt, even harsh, however, unless and until the “my body, my choice” argument regarding abortion is dropped, people who claim that such logic is inapplicable to vaccine mandates should just shut up. I am not saying anything about you specifically, however, the hypocrisy of the “my body, my choice” argument on abortion and yet being dismissed regarding vaccine mandates is absurd.

  37. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, unless and until the abortion on-demand crowd drops the “my body, my choice” argument, I don’t want to hear people whining about how wrong it is for politicians to legislate the issue and then tell people that they have to take an untested and unverified vaccine which has caused more fatalities than Covid-19 has. The Left-wing media can claim otherwise, however, they deceive themselves and unfairly report events so as to give themselves more credibility.

    • Ragnar, how sure are you that the information you receive from your unofficial sources is true and accurate? A lot of people are getting fame and money from deceiving people with lies and distortions about vaccines. I am positive the vaccine has not caused more fatalities than Covid-19. For gosh sakes, Ragnar, over 800,000 Americans have died from Covid. Do you expect me to believe that more people than that have died from the vaccine? Really, my friend! In my opinion your sources are bad. Of course, you will decide who you wish to believe. And I probably can’t convince you otherwise.
      https://fullfact.org/health/daily-expose-covid-deaths-vaccine-deaths/
      https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-vaccine-idUSL2N2O01W8
      A lot of anti-vaxxers are shocked when they come down with Covid. Some die in denial.
      Sad. Very sad. I hope you stay healthy. The majority of serious Covid cases are among the unvaccinated and in Red States. I hope you stay healthy.

  38. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, unless and until the “my body, my choice” argument, which is being applied to abortion is dropped, I don’t want to hear that argument being judged as invalid regarding vaccine mandates. How come “my body, my choice” isn’t valued at every level? Seems like a heavy forefront for abortion rights but not for other circumstances.I also find it to be hypocritical when people say, “my body, my choice” on the abortion matter and yet that argument has no validity regarding vaccine mandates. Vaccine or test with fully-informed consent I could support as long as it does not become compulsory. Mask mandates for interacting with the public and vaccine or test I can support as policies. Just my thinking on the matter.

    I am largely skeptical of the data surrounding the vaccines. Having said that, I would be open to the idea if the bugs were worked out and the right vaccines got to the right people. Vaccines that work should not have to be forced. The FDA asked for 55 years to complete FOIA request on Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Why so long if it is so safe and effective?

    No one can force an experimental drug into anyone’s body without their full consent according to the Nuremberg Code. People who want to go around that by making an Unconstitutional mandate Constitutional are guilty of violating the Nuremberg Code.

    To be fair, if the vaccine manufacturers were willing to be open and transparent about potential vaccine problems and said that they had to work on getting them to be more stable and reduce the risk of potential long-term complications, I would be willing to believe that. What I doubt is their willingness to be upfront about the situation.

    Good immune system health should be more than enough to help people fight off infections for the most part. Staying away from people when a virus is going around is also an added bonus.

  39. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I would not be objectionable to the Covid-19 vaccines being available for people at large. The only things I would do is have fully informed consent, the inputs of a medical care provider and a pharmacist so as to determine the right vaccine for the right person based on underlying medical considerations and that vaccine manufactures can be sued and be required to compensate the family members of people being damaged by the vaccines. Just my thoughts.

  40. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I will not deny the fact that the various Covid-19 vaccines have benefited some people. The issues as I see them are in the selective reports where people who report positive experiences are given more attention by the media and those who report bad experiences are being dismissed as perpetuating misinformation, even disinformation.

  41. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I would use a law of physics to challenge both sides on the vaccine debate. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. If there were no contaminants in the vaccines and they were pure, I would allow every person to make his or her own decision on the matter along with the input of the person’s primary care provider or maybe a Neurologist if there is concern about the risk of brain damage as a result of any vaccines.

    The vaccine I was the least skeptical of until some unfavorable reports came out against it was the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. I am not saying anything bad about the rest of them, however, with each story being different, who is telling the truth?

  42. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I have no problem with the vaccine or test idea because of the flexibility in that option. Example: If someone wanted to get vaccinated for tetanus and someone wanted to be tested for tetanus but not vaccinated, I can see legitimacy to both sides of the discussion. Informed consent and freedom of choice are the matters involved.

    Here are videos for you: 1: https://www.bitchute.com/video/VKoHhIwGnIPk/, 2: https://www.bitchute.com/video/jm2euik7MlCV/, 3: https://www.bitchute.com/video/H9GyqoPMvfRa/, 4: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pyczBzMfOnuo/, 5: https://www.bitchute.com/video/jZfbuYyjZhGK/, 6: https://www.bitchute.com/video/YThHI6XOzDoq/, 7: https://www.bitchute.com/video/9KCxyj9zQ4N8/, 8: https://www.bitchute.com/video/yn3u9ETcxCbV/, 9: https://www.bitchute.com/video/TlxWZHk5yhFM/, 10: https://www.bitchute.com/video/y7X9xkankSVh/, 11: https://www.bitchute.com/video/9P1SUufljQhI/, 12: https://www.bitchute.com/video/DwU5ajjAOXFC/, 13: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UhW0OJetI6zm/, 14: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UluAc0JI8NZm/, 15: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4V7T7wH5Cb0E/, 16: https://www.bitchute.com/video/t9vbQXCnrjxw/, 17: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1lyFggcw9P9c/, 18: https://www.bitchute.com/video/DX9YUkISbqHR/, 19: https://www.bitchute.com/video/AlFVoU6mxdIR/, 20: https://www.bitchute.com/video/gDnQVKekJLpT/, 21: https://www.bitchute.com/video/im8tqf0JtSPB/, 22: https://www.bitchute.com/video/CXdoSbUGeaUU/, 23: https://www.bitchute.com/video/righfqyyjUKq/, 24: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ALrtqSQJjera/, 25: https://www.bitchute.com/video/N3j2yZuUmY6k/, 26: https://www.bitchute.com/video/gcUSRI0y3c0E/, 27: https://www.bitchute.com/video/PtgEJoDZY8Z6/, 28: https://www.bitchute.com/video/zjF19U0e2q8x/, 29: https://www.bitchute.com/video/CWuBcZdXHwK4/, 30: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qExQZ65HtHU0/, 31: https://www.bitchute.com/video/d5i9KXjn6hkk/, 32: https://www.bitchute.com/video/NQCMvUBDN83O/, 33: https://www.bitchute.com/video/9SRnnDblhWR4/, 34: https://www.bitchute.com/video/d5i9KXjn6hkk/, 35: https://www.bitchute.com/video/N6QwNWpdeZUe/, 36: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1sfjBINvXG0V/, 37: https://www.bitchute.com/video/3J0iXeayK1Ig/, 38: https://www.bitchute.com/video/MiamagX9YZgQ/, 39: https://www.bitchute.com/video/PLzNa9oWjVOt/, 40: https://www.bitchute.com/video/E3ffxTw9R44L/, 41: https://www.bitchute.com/video/na9WCHJIsEhx/, 42: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qq6hziNz9PKi/, 43: https://www.bitchute.com/video/kJ4CWTPKuwUt/, 44: https://www.bitchute.com/video/UfXy6d1fzMhy/, 45: https://www.bitchute.com/video/V9SIwHUdIKz8/, 46: https://www.bitchute.com/video/RwS2SXfi6Mfu/, 47: https://www.bitchute.com/video/KV1xaAfZJKsD/, 48: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4ZAuiwJboP3s/, 49: https://www.bitchute.com/video/rczSN0mVKijo/, 50: https://www.bitchute.com/video/vhCLmCAlXsqt/, 51: https://www.bitchute.com/video/6WjUN9NAacuq/, 52: https://www.bitchute.com/video/iPUzKtqu5dZU/, 53: https://www.bitchute.com/video/vSGVXmemNqe0/, 54: https://www.bitchute.com/video/9VLbNVeES7Zn/, 55: https://www.bitchute.com/video/1xJ6omL8PyT7/, 56: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4LDpT2uL4vXh/, 57: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pyrYwU5uaXq3/ Watch these videos at your convenience.

    • Ragnar, after I showed you that Bitchute is an unreliable source, you send me a ton more of their videos, I can only assume you don’t pay attention to my comment replies.

      One more time: “Sorry, Ragnar. my independent research shows me that BitChute is a right-wing conspiracy group with a racist history and no credibility. I won’t be using your links for that kind of source..
      I think it’s best that we agree to disagree on the Covid topic. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I actually do pay attention. The problem is in this confirmation bias you seem to have, as do I, which I will concede.

        • Perhaps you are right, Ragnar, about the confirmation bias. However, I would like to note that my sources are long-standing reputable ones, for instance, all the major long-time television networks (CBS, NBC.ABC, PBS), most major newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, etc), recognized experts in their field, and long-standing, reputable science organizations and journals. Also all the top universities and public health officials. If they make mistakes, or are wrong, they make a point of correcting their information.

          Your sources, like Fox News, Newsmax, conspiracy-themed radio programs (like Alex Jones), controversial websites often run by people without credentials, and a long record of inaccurate and false information, and others who hate government and the current administration, and have agendas to promote their causes.

          If that is confirmation bias, I’m comfortable with mine.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, at the very least we seem to agree on the matter of health care to some extent.

          • I’m glad to hear that, Ragnar.  Especially since too many people lack access to affordable health care.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I listed 3 systems I like more than our current system.

          • Yes, Ragnar, you have talked about other health systems in Europe that are better than ours. I suspect there are more than three. I give you credit for keeping an open mind and being flexible on the subject. Nobody has all the answers, myself included, so it is good we keep searching to find better solutions. I think we can.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I am not dismissing the merits of Medicare For All. The issue is in the fact that there are multiple systems that seem to be better than ours and it is hard to decide which system to emulate.

  43. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here are 3 questions for you: 1: If your preferred news sources and some of the far Right news sources both said the same things on the vaccines not being safe or effective, as well as VAERS reporting some very undesirable after-effects of the vaccines, why would you give more validity to Left-leaning news outlets in that regard, particularly if the conclusions were the same across-the-board? 2: Outside of the vaccines, which should be administered in a medical office or by a fully trained pharmacist, should therapeutics be available as over-the-counter or by prescription? 3: What would surprise you more: If people who did not take the vaccine and completely self-isolated managed to avoid getting sick with Covid-19 easily avoided it by that behavior or people who threw caution to the wind, even with the vaccine, still managed to get it?

    • Let me be clear, Ragnar, I do not rely on left-wing sources. I look for liberal and conventional middle of the road sources and determine what I feel sounds credible, if evidence is shown to back up their conclusions.

      I don’t care for right-wing news sources, because they make a point of lying if it furthers their viewpoint. I will give you examples: most say the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, even if they have no evidence to back it up. Many of them say January 6 was nothing at all, just peaceful protesters , acting like tourists. Or a false flag done by antifa.
      The hours of video show otherwise and are very clear that it was a violent insurrection,

      Most importantly, reputable, qualified scientists using accurate verified research, is what I rely on. Right-wing sources lack those kinds of methods and qualifications, and seem to be pursuing an agenda that supports their desired views. And I’ll say it again, truth and facts do not matter to them, in my opinion. Only winning and gaining power matter.

      It’s just plain obvious to me. And would be to you, I think, if you were objective.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I look at all angles on issues and then render judgments afterward. Example: If David Pakman, someone I disagree with politically says something that is determined to be factually true, I would give him credit for it.

    • Sorry, Ragnar. my independent research shows me that BitChute is a right-wing conspiracy group with a racist history and no credibility. I won’t be using your links for that kind of source..
      I think it’s best that we agree to disagree on the Covid topic. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bitchute/
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I say this with great respect and no insult intended, however, your sources push agendas that have no basis in truth. They sell you a bill of goods and rely on soundbites to give themselves more credibility. If David Pakman, Thom Hartmann, Sam Seder, The Young Turks, Vox and Secular Talk w/Kyle Kulinski came out against the vaccines, why would you side with them and dismiss the potential merits of what other sources say?

  44. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, between permanent injury or death from an untested vaccine and just distancing myself from people who probably run the risk of having Covid-19, I would opt for the latter. If nurses and doctors are speaking out against the vaccines, that should be a red flag to anybody who even thinks about getting it.

    Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Maderna and Johnson & Johnson may each benefit a certain group of people. The issue is the right vaccine getting to the right person. Just my thoughts.

  45. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a hypothetical scenario: A family of 4 took each of 4 vaccines, that from Moderna, that from Astrazeneca, that from Johnson & Johnson, as well as the Pfizer vaccine. What would it mean if they each gave informed consent, however, they all had bad reactions, non-lethal hopefully, but had some problematic side-effects? Who should have the greater accountability to the people taking the vaccines: the vaccine companies or the medical care provider(s) who administered the vaccine(s?)

  46. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if the argument “my body, my choice” is being made to justify why abortions should be legal, why can’t that argument be just as valid regarding vaccine mandates? It is hypocritical to employ the “my body, my choice” argument on abortion and yet throw that argument out the door in response to the matter of vaccine mandates.

  47. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, on the Covid-19 vaccine mandates, those should be seen as Unconstitutional. I believe in the idea of informed consent and freedom of choice. This should encompass both the vaccines and the therapeutic options. I also find it to be rather contradictory when the very people who argue that health care should be seen as a right want to get between a doctor and a patient regarding treatment protocols for whatever situation.

    • I’m disappointed, Ragnar, that you would choose ideology over common sense and safety.
      Over 600,000 American have died from the Covid virus and it is scientific fact that vaccines reduce Covid deaths. By the way, I didn’t know anybody that is forced to take the vaccine. Where is that done?

      I suppose a requirement to have a driver’s license to drive is also unconstitutional? And wearing seat belts is required. Is that unconstitutional, too?
      Sorry, Ragnar, I choose science and health over irigid ideology. There are too many people who have died from the virus after strong denial bout the disease, masks and vaccinations. I hope you won’t be one of them.

  48. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, between VAERS and the CDC, who would you find to be more credible related to the information about the Covid-19 vaccines?

    • Easy question, Ragnar. I would sooner trust the CDC, which uses scientific research, more than Anti-Vaxxers who have an agenda and rely on anecdotal reports rather than scientific study. There is overwhelming evidence for the benefits of the vaccine, and scientists are clear of their efficacy.

  49. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMbcZhgUimQ I disagree with Kyle Kulinski on a lot of things. Having said that, I would give him credit in this regard. I am not 100% pro-vaccine and not 100% anti-vaccine. What I want to see is more research being conducted on the vaccines before making them available to the public at large.

    Being labeled as anti-vaccine is completely unfair if generalizations are employed to justify that accusation. The statistics of vaccine-related injuries and deaths, which are pretty staggering, only causes me to be skeptical.

    • Research is very clear than deaths among the non-vaccinated number much more than deaths among the vaccinated. Isn’ that enough for you?

      • I would challenge you, Ragnar, to show me the statistics of’ “staggering” vaccine-related injuries and deaths. I’m confident you won’t find a scientifically reliable study that proves those claims.l
        Why do so many conservatives/right-wingers refuse to believe in science?

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, the research is probably fabricated to make these so-called experts look good.

        • I’m not sure whose research you are referring to. Nothing is a sure thing, of course. But I have no reason to doubt the CDC, as they have to be accountable to Congress, at least. I will trust the professionals, those who do these things for a living, before I would trust some random anti-vaxxer. I think the odds are better. I’ve had my Moderna vaccines and booster with no bad effects, and I wish every American would do the same.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, that may possibly be true if the social distancing was taken out of the equation.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman. on Bitchute.com and Brighteon.com there are a number of videos that describe in great detail the problems with the vaccines. Safe and effective? Based on the stories I have heard, I call b.s. on that narrative.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I call b.s. on that claim. Some people are excluded from the Pertussis vaccine because of underlying medical conditions that make said vaccine inadvisable. Should the people who can tolerate but refuse to take it be forced to by legislative dictate? What happened to the idea of “my body, my choice” argument?

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, this is highly debatable.

  50. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I had mentioned liking both the German health care model and Medicare For All. I am not playing favorites between them. The context was that both are explained quite well, however, I am not sure what the better model to emulate would be. Just my thoughts.

  51. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a video for you: https://www.bitchute.com/video/gcUSRI0y3c0E/ I find it to be absolutely absurd that the very people who claim that health care is or should be a right are the very people who want to compulsorily force these various Covid-19 vaccines on us against our will and yet deny us other alternative treatments in case the vaccines are inadvisable because of underlying health concerns. If people want to pursue therapeutic options or get the vaccines, that should be up to them and their medical care providers to decide. People who claim that health care should be a right and yet want to deny us the right to have access to certain therapeutic treatments are hypocrites.

    • Health care should be a right in any civilized society. The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth to deny this right. Nobody should have to declare bankruptcy if they can’t pay for medical services. Some people must choose between prescription drug or food.. I go with the science on masks and vaccine. Their statistics indicate people are getting sick and dying more if they are not vaccinated. The more people take advantage of it, the sooner we can eliminate it.

  52. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the problem with the debate as to whether or not health care is a right is where it begins and where it ends. Example: A right to healthcare means to me that I should be able to grow and create my own medication or purchase it from wherever without government telling me what I can and cannot ingest. My body, my choice. The problem is that the very people who say, “Keep your laws out of my body,” which is implied in their behavior and choices, is that they want to put the government in charge of managing health care. But they just said to keep the laws out of their bodies.

  53. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, one thing that is messed up about our health care system is in how people with disabling conditions are viewed. On the matter of Medicare For All, if it cost less than having all of the insurance companies and cost less than all other things our government wastes money on, as well as not leading to increases in the national debt, I would be for it.

    • The only likely way Medicare For All doesn’t add to our national debt is for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. I suspect, Ragnar, that would be a choice you would not be feeling comfortable making.

  54. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, we have gone back and forth on the idea of whether or not health care should be a right or not. If the argument is made that having a right to life translates to having a right to health care, I could take that argument seriously. Politicians on the Left love to talk about rights that the Founding Documents don’t even talk about and discard and disregard rights that are spelled out in plain English.

    • Are politicians on the Right any different? Government should let us lead our own lives without interference…except of course if it involves a woman’s body or a person’s sexuality. Gun rights are absolute…if we ignore all the words in the 2nd Amendment. Government should not spend more than we take in…..unless it involves billions of dollars of tax cuts for the rich. And so on….

  55. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if medical care providers claimed that access to health care is a human right, I would be willing to take that claim seriously. Politicians who claim that it should be a right out of one side of their mouth also want to regulate medical care and impose bureaucracy that makes things difficult for the medical care provider(s) to see to the needs of the patient(s) in the office out of the other.

    • I don’t want medical care providers to decide whether health care is a human right. They have too many possible financial conflicts of interest. It should be a human right because too many people can’t afford the cost and could fail to use it or go bankrupt. That is why every other developed country has universal health care. Good health should not be a matter of how much money a citizen has.

  56. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, per the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no individuals are to be deprived of their lives, their liberties, their property without due process of law. If one wants to make the argument that having a right to life translates to having a right to health care, I could concede that point. The issue is where the rights vs. commodities aspect comes into play. When you tell a society of people that a professional service is a “right,” It means that there are limited rights to those who practice this profession, which creates a double standard. Every Doctor has a different way of practicing, and form unique lasting relationships with their clients. When politicians try to introduce a law that makes health care a right, practitioners must provide free healthcare, or otherwise offer extraordinarily unaffordable health services for those who elect to pay for it.

    Here are a few questions I would like to get your thoughts on: 1: For people who can work but have disabilities that make some types of work impractical, even impossible, do you think they should have a limited claim to disability benefits or for every dollar paid into the system that dollar is paid out in full down to the last penny? 2: Between over-the-counter medications and those that are prescribed by a medical care provider, should those be covered equally under Medicare For All? 3: If we went with Medicare For All, would people who are on Medicaid be automatically converted to Medicare For All?

  57. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is an article for you: https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2021/06/03/never-let-a-plague-go-to-waste-n2590381 Related to my question about your thoughts insofar as the vaccines and therapeutics, I do not require an absolute answer. Your general thoughts are welcome, however, an absolute answer is not a requirement. Based on what you heard and read about the Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson vaccine options, what causes you to have the least skepticism and what would merit the most skepticism based on the reported stories, even the contradictory stories?

  58. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, what are your thoughts on the therapeutic treatments and the vaccines that are in development for the Coronavirus?

  59. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I have 3 questions for you: 1: Should over the counter and prescription medications be covered under Medicare For All equally? 2: Whose credibility would be greater as to the belief that health care is a right in your opinion: A medical care provider who gets to see patients on a personal basis or a politician whose goal is to get votes? 3: If not Medicare For All, what country do you think we would be wise to emulate on the health care issue? Personally, I like the German and French models.

  60. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if we did not have the massive debt and the unfunded and underfunded liabilities to deal with, I would not have any real objection to Medicare For All. Just my thoughts.

  61. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I would take more seriously the idea that health care is a right if such sentiments were expressed by medical care providers than politicians. Why? Because medical care providers who express the belief that health care is a right seem to genuinely believe that and politicians say things like health care is a right to get votes.

    • I suspect there are some doctors who look at health care as a right, but others probably fear it, worried that they might lose income. Nonetheless, every other advanced country offers nationalized health care, believing health care is a right, and none of them has gone back to an American-style system.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I have studied in great detail the world’s health care systems. Having said that, I still like the German model based on the way it is explained. The French system as it is explained also sounds good to me.

  62. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I will look into this in greater detail, however, would I be correct if I thought that private medical practices would still be private under Medicare For All?

  63. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I have studied the various health care systems around the globe. Not to put them in a specific order, however, I like Medicare For All, the German health care system and the health care system in France. One thing that does concern me is how to handle people’s care who have complex medical situations and how to work out any bugs in the system. Something else I mentioned is the concern as to how medical care providers would be compensated for their services.

    People with complex disabilities and any and all medical needs that accompany said disabilities is also of some concern. If we went with Medicare For All and people who are medically disabled also got the care they needed under such a system, I would be good with that.

  64. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I like the idea of Medicare For All conceptually. The one issue that raises concern is in how people with disabilities are taken care of under such a system. If Medicare For All is implemented, that should mean everyone is covered. Just my thoughts.

  65. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if someone wanted to make the argument about health care being a right in the sense that one has the right to decide his or her choice of medical care provider, I could buy into the rights argument from that standpoint. The problem is where you draw the line between where the rights aspect comes into play and the service being provided to you. While I believe that our medical care system needs to be fixed, I really like the model that Germany has.

  66. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I am not necessarily opposed to Medicare For All. What I like most about the German system is that it found a way to provide universal health care coverage while maintaining a competitive insurance market that allows its citizens more choices. Germany spends 11.2% of its GDP on health care while the U.S.A. spends 17.1% of its GDP on health care. Germany manages to cover 100% of its population, while 8.8% of the U.S. population remains uninsured and other people are under insured. The best thing about German health care is: You can call an ambulance anytime when you feel it is necessary without fearing to be bankrupt afterwards.

    • Yes! We are in agreement on this, Ragnar.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I will research this some more.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I know that Medicare For All has a lot of support from people. While I do like it conceptually, my only area of concern is in the contradictory information that I have heard and read. People are entitled to their opinions, yes, however, are people who have bad experiences that are on Medicare attributing their problems to the wrong source? What are your thoughts?

          • Ragnar, most likely every possible health care program will have problems and complaints. There is no perfect plan, but the ones that cover everybody would be my favorites.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, when I said that I like the German model, the reason I like it is due to how it is explained. When you go to an hospital in Germany they want a card from you but it’s not a credit card. That’s the difference. People should not have to go bankrupt due to medical bills, however, I do believe that medical care providers should not be required to work without some degree of compensation. Where can middle ground be found that satisfies both the people who argue that health care is a right and yet also recognizes that medical care providers should be fairly compensated for their services?

  67. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, to declare health care is a right may sound good in the abstract. The problem is in the slippery slope issue that we may come across as a result of its declaration as being a right. Do I have the right to demand that someone pay for me to have a coronary bypass surgery? No. Is it my right to demand that someone pay for medical appointments that I do not know? Of course not.

  68. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, Germany’s system costs less than ours does. They are able to cover 100% of their population. The Germans spend less on health care, however, their health outcomes are much better. Life expectancy in Germany is 2.5% higher than in the U.S., something that is of interest to me. The best thing about German health care is: You can call an ambulance anytime when you feel it is necessary without fearing to be bankrupt afterwards. The fact that many people in the U.S.A. go without medical care because of fear of going bankrupt is staggering.

  69. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, Germany has statutory health insurance, as well as private health insurance. Getting insurance is mandatory. Despite spending less on health care, Germany has better health outcomes for its citizens. Personally, I would not necessarily object to us gravitating toward a model that is similar to what they have in Germany. “But wait, we are not like Germany,” some people will say. This is true. Having said that, there system of health care seems to be more concerned with the health of the patient(s) and not having to contend with the level of bureaucratic b.s. that we do in the U.S.A., which is a big advantage for the people of Germany.

  70. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I had said that I like the health care system that Germany has based on what I have heard and read. Not that I object to some of the other models, however, the way Germany’s system of health care is described has a particular appeal to me. Purchase of health insurance is a mandatory thing in Germany. “But wait, we are not Germany,” some people will say. This is true, however, I would not mind gravitating toward a system similar to what they have in Germany. Germany’s health care system costs less than ours does. People are required to have health insurance. Less money is spent on health care in Germany than in the U.S., however, they seem to have better health outcomes than we do. With proper access to care, Germany has had fewer preventable deaths among its population than the United States. Why not follow Germany’s example?

  71. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I am not opposed to Medicare For All on principle. Having said that, if we did not go for that model, I would support the idea of gravitating toward the model that Germany has. The reason Germany’s model has the most appeal to me is based on the way that it is explained. Based on my perceptions, the German system operates more efficiently.

  72. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I believe that there is some disinformation that is being spread as to how the countries that have single-payer medical care operate. Not that I have any issue with the other countries that do have single-payer medical care systems, however, what I have read about the system in Germany gives me a reason to believe that its system of health care would be just as good as Medicare For All, if not better.

  73. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I have no objection to some of the other models that other countries have related to health care. If we did not go with Medicare For All, I would like to see us gravitate toward the German model. Germany manages to cover 100% of its population. We have a significant population, however, I would not object if we gravitated toward the model that Germany has.

  74. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, each health care system will have its share of issues. I get that. Medicare For All is appealing to me, however, if we did not go down that route, I would not object to implementing the model that they have in Germany here. Reports indicate that having health insurance in Germany is mandatory, that everyone has to get it. For the record, I see no problem with Medicare For All. Having said that, the way Germany’s model is described causes me to think that this would be just as ideal as Medicare For All.

  75. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the German system has the most appeal to me based on what I have heard and read. Not that I have any problems with other countries who have their own systems, nor do I have any objections to Medicare For All, however, if we did not go the route of Medicare For All, I would gravitate toward the German system based on how it is explained.

  76. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I like the idea of Medicare For All. Having said that, I also like the model that Germany has.

  77. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here are some videos for you: 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1fXOSpIj8, 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw, 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enuw-sexHeM, 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEzO2KoJq2A, 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBxROPwxtwE, 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfC1YG9wIs, 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kf7p60oYNQ, 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNwcT9XFbc8, 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRuivVFL80 It is true that our system as it exists needs to be fixed. The problem as I see it is that single-payer health care would probably have government doing the same thing that insurance companies do-playing favorites with the lives of the citizens and picking winners and losers.

    • Looking at some of your videos, Ragnar, I notice that administrative costs between public and private are not compared. It is substantial. Also, very little mention of the fact that our current system excludes the millions of Americans lacking medical insurance. Medicare for Alll would cover everyone. But one question I have is this: Why do we even have for-profit insurance companies involved with our health care? It doesn’t seem logical. What is the purpose of insurance companies in regards to our health care? By the way, any system involves picking winners and losers. But insurance companies have one goal: increase their profit and that colors their decision making. Not so with single-payer public plans.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, each video essentially says that putting government in charge of medical care would make the medical issues worse. I am skeptical of arguments on both sides of this issue. Even if we went with Medicare For all, what bugs do you think should be worked on in order to make it more viable?

    • Looking at some of your videos, Ragnar, I notice that administrative costs between public and private are not compared. It is substantial. Also, very little mention of the fact that our current system excludes the millions of Americans lacking medical insurance. Medicare for Alll would cover everyone. But one question I have is this: Why do we even have for-profit insurance companies involved with our health care? It doesn’t seem logical. What is the purpose of insurance companies in regards to our health care? By the way, any system involves picking winners and losers. But insurance companies have one goal: increase their profit and that colors their decision making. Not so with single-payer public plans.

  78. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if I purchased a few boxes of Advil to deal with migraines or any other painful situation I face, I am voting with my money. The Advil was created as a marketable good/commodity. That required time and money to create. Having the right to purchase the Advil is one thing. Forcing someone to create it is another. When something is declared in absolute terms as a right that is not listed in the U.S. Constitution, it is considered as being man made. Just as my rights should come at no expense to you, so should yours not come at my expense either. Unless there are bugs in the single-payer systems that just have not been worked out, I am inclined to believe that Medicare For All only sounds good in theory.

  79. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I do not believe that people who need health care should be forced to go without it. There is the right vs. commodity/service argument. If someone says, “I have the right to take an Advil for a migraine headache,” that person is exercising his or her right to take the Advil for the migraine headache. When a person produces the Advil, it is sold as a marketable good/commodity. No person can go up to another person and demand that the person create an Advil for the person dealing with the migraine headache.

  80. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is an article for you: https://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2017/03/30/is-health-care-a-right-or-a-good-n2305865 People who go into the medical care profession do so of their own volition. When one uses seemingly moral arguments to validate the notion that we have a right to health care, that automatically implies that it should be free. Unless someone provides a service free of charge, that person is within his or her rights to be fairly compensated.

  81. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, people who argue for Medicare For All say that it would stop greed and not competition. There is the argument that gravitating toward single-payer would save billions of dollars in terms of medical care costs. I am not necessarily opposed to taking health insurance companies out of the equation. The issue as I see it is the potential abuses of our medical facilities by people who cross over the border from Mexico illegally in order to mooch off of us because they cannot get their situation under control. One argument for single-payer is that we would save $350, 000, 000, 000.00 a year in medical costs. We also have the right vs. service argument regarding health care. If the right to health care translated to people having the right to decide whichever medical specialist they could see only, I could buy into the rights argument from that standpoint. If someone said in absolute terms that he or she had the right to a service of a medical professional without any compensation, that would not be right. Regarding the Affordable Care Act, what did you like about that and what could have been done differently to make it better?

  82. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I believe that it is morally wrong for the medical industry to profit from the sickness and death of anybody. I would be less skeptical of the idea of single-payer health care if I can still have a say-so in which medical care providers I want to see. For me, the biggest issue is the conflicting information that is out there.

  83. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, tort reform would also greatly reduce the cost of health care. The current tort system raises the cost of care by encouraging unnecessary testing and procedures which increase the cost of medical care by forcing medical teams to devote significant time and resources to preventing or defending against unwarranted legal actions. When legitimate claims arise, they should be taken seriously and resolved fairly through the courts. However, frivolous and fraudulent claims should not be tolerated, as our current system does. These disparage our healthcare providers and the quality of medical care they can provide and that we can receive. People can argue that having a right to life should translate to having a right to health care, however, a right to life is one thing, while having a right to health care is a separate issue. Since rights by their very nature do not incur costs to other people, since medical care has to be paid for somehow, that does not make it a right. The healthcare system in the U.S.A. needs to be fixed, but I think Medicare for all isn’t a realistic idea.

  84. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, unless each politician who makes laws regarding health care have medical degrees that we do not know about, I am of the belief that laws should not be proposed on either side regarding this issue. Another person who commented posted a video where Paul Ryan was asked about health care being a right or a privilege. The actual answer Paul Ryan gave was omitted from the title, thereby making the person making the presentation out to be disingenuous with his analysis.

    Medicare for all sounds good in theory. Having said that, a cost-benefit analysis should be done to see the ultimate effects. If I could still see a specialist of my choosing, then I would view this as a non-issue.

    If the government said, “You can still see a medical care provider of your choosing, however, we will pay the bill,” I could go with that. Just let me see the specialist of my choosing and the method of payment is a non-issue.

    Like I had said, my one concern is how much compensation the medical specialists would receive after the medical appointments. You said that the concern was valid, however, you had implied that things could be done to make it more equitable for both the medical care provider and the patient.

    There are some aspects in which I actually do agree with you on, so we are on the same side in most regards. We just seem to have some areas of miscommunication.

  85. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, from what I have heard, single payer medical care results in long waiting times, worse long-term outcomes, and lower quality of care, particularly in larger countries. However, our current system in the U.S.A. is by no means perfect. Another person posted a video link from Youtube where Paul Ryan was discussing the idea of whether or not health care was a right or a privilege. When Paul Ryan said, “Not from the government,” I think that he was implying that giving the government that decision making capacity would make them equivalent to playing God. The title in the video was also deceptive, as there was an omission of the answer that Paul Ryan actually provided to the interviewer. Here is an example of a scenario for you: Someone is asked on live television if that person has the right to drink as much coffee as they want to. That person says, “Not from the government.” Why should the government have greater jurisdiction in the decision making regarding health care and not having the right to regulate how much coffee a person can consume?

    • So, Ragnar, I suppose you would rather have for-profit insurance companies making health care decisions rather than the government?

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, the issue boils down to a matter of personal freedom. Barack Obama himself said that if we like our doctors that we can keep seeing our doctors. If in a single-payer model I can still see the medical specialist of my choosing, that would not be an issue for me.

        • From what I’ve seen, insurance companies have their preferred doctors. From my short experience with Medicare , I’m able to pick my own doctors (as long as they accept Medicare). So what’s the problem, Ragnar?

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, the problem is the abuses in our medical system. People cross over the border from Mexico and take advantage of medical facilities that we pay the price for financially. As for the Medicare for all proposal, if it covered the young and the old, the people who work and people who had a disability that kept them from working, I could see merit to going with this from that standpoint. Another problem worth mentioning is my citation of the issue of lower quality of care. Maybe there are anomalies in the system that need to be checked and improved. This a rule of three issue. You can have heath care that is Inexpensive, or high quality, or timely, but you can only choose two. Which two would you choose? Americans should have the choice of purchasing private healthcare across state lines. This creates competition and would inevitably lower the costs. If the wait times were due to an injury that was not life threatening, then it may be difficult to contend with the injury if it was painful, however, the medical care provider would still likely be able to see the person in question at the appropriate time. According to some people we would get better deals from doctors and dentistry by not having insurance. Medicare for All is just the re-branding of Universal Healthcare. The Democrats are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. If you want government run healthcare look no further than the dumpster fire that is the VA. Government is not the answer and if you want affordable healthcare without the need for insurance then you need to get government out of the equation.

  86. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the same people saying, “keep your laws out of my body” are demanding that the government take control of the entire healthcare industry. How exactly is that logic supposed to work? Now, you could argue that universal healthcare would be less expensive due to economy of scale, but the government isn’t incentivized to provide quality inexpensively. The federal government per the 10th amendment has no business getting involved in healthcare. No matter what the ever changing definition of Medicare for All is, Congress will exempt themselves. If the government takes on the role of becoming the primary medical care payer, we are all doomed. The first step to restoring quality health care in America is to remove government from the healthy care system completely. If statistically it was proven that the people get less quality care in a single-payer model medical care system than they do with private insurance, the arguments for single-payer would fall apart. We could dramatically reduce costs of medical care by securing the southern border and stopping the inflow of illegal immigrants who freeload off of us without paying a damn penny. I would also support the repeal of the anchor baby laws so there is no incentive for people to cross over the southern border and give birth to unborn children and bestowing automatic citizenship to them. Open up the medical insurance markets to compete across state lines. Force insurers to compete – lower costs and increase quality. If you want government run healthcare look no further than the dumpster fire that is the VA. We don’t need medicare for all, we need the healthcare industry to be held accountable for their extortion.

    • As for health care, Ragnar, ask yourself this question: We are looking to replicate some sort of universal health care, like in Canada and every European country. Why is no other country wanting to change for our system of health care? The answer tells it all.

  87. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I would be less skeptical of the concept of single-payer medical care if the reports were not conflicting. Just my thoughts.

  88. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, I believe in the value of human life. The only area I disagree with you on is method of payment for medical care. 3 options seem to be out there. Here they are: 1: Single-payer, which many people advocate. 2: Private insurance, which many people also advocate. 3: Paying out of pocket for medical appointments. The only legitimate argument in favor of single-payer I have heard is that which employs the statistic that 45, 000 people die while waiting because they do not have health insurance at all. According to the Canadian model, it is conceded that it is not perfect. The only alleged waiting time in a single-payer model is if you are having an elective procedure that is for a non life-threatening medical situation.

  89. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the healthcare industry is virtually monopolized by the government and a handful of insurance companies. They hold the checkbook and wield it for their own benefit. Each year, the government sets prices that they will pay providers including doctors and hospitals. Each year, these payments increase at less than the cost of inflation, while the cost of providing medical care increases by a far greater amount. This has unpleasant consequences for everyone. Providers are incentivized to do what is quick and cheap, not what is in the best interest of a particular patient. Doctors are forced to reduce the time they spend with patients, and this reduces quality of care. Hospitals are discouraged from upgrading facilities, and this reduces quality of care. Worse yet, insurance companies often set their payments according to the government’s prices. This regular ratcheting down on payments to providers, while actual costs to provide care increases, makes providers less able to provide high quality healthcare. Government also regulates where medical facilities can be built, who can build them, and when. The process for applying for permission to build facilities is very costly and very slow, thus it favors the biggest corporations and prevents smaller organizations from opening new facilities that could serve patients. This greatly limits patients’ access to medical care and increases costs compared to a system where government permission was not required. Libertarians believe that each person has the right to make their own medical decisions. Libertarians support removing government meddling from healthcare. They think this and tort reform are the best ways to improve quality of healthcare, increase access to healthcare, and decrease prices of healthcare in our country. If the supply of medical care is controlled by the federal government, then officers of that government will determine which demand is​​ satisfied. The result will be the rationing of services, higher costs, poorer results – and the power of life and death transferred from caring physicians to unaccountable political overseers. The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. Therefore, the elimination of the federal Food and Drug Administration should be immediate, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much of the rest of the civilized world.

  90. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here are a list of arguments for a supposed right to health care: 1: The founding documents of the United States provide support for a right to health care. The Declaration of Independence states that all men have “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” which necessarily entails having the health care needed to preserve life and pursue happiness. The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to “promote the general welfare” of the people. According to former Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), as part of efforts to “promote the general welfare,” health care “is a legitimate function of government.” 2: Instituting a right to health care could lower the cost of health care in the United States. According to a study from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, under a single-payer system, in which all citizens are guaranteed a right to health care, total public and private health care spending could be lowered by up to $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years due to lowered administrative and prescription drug costs. The American Medical Association reports that private health insurance plans spend 11.7% of premiums on administrative costs vs. 6.3% spent by public health programs. According to data by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Canada and the United Kingdom, two countries that provide universal health coverage, spend 47% and 42% of what the United States did per capita in 2017. South Korea, also with universal coverage, spent just 28%. 3: A right to health care could save lives. According to a study from Harvard researchers, “lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year,” which translates into a 40% increased risk of death among the uninsured. Another study found that more than 13,000 deaths occur each year just in the 55-64 year old age group due to lack of health insurance coverage. 4: The right to health care is an internationally recognized human right. 5: A right to health care could make medical services affordable for everyone. 6: Providing all citizens the right to health care is good for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier lives and miss work less, allowing them to contribute more to the economy. 7: A right to health care could improve public health.

    Here is a list of arguments against a supposed right to health care: 1: The founding documents of the United States do not provide support for a right to health care. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say there is a right to health care. 2: A right to health care could lead to government rationing of medical services. 3: A right to health care could cause people to overuse health care resources. 4: People should pay for their own health care, not have it given to them by the government. Under a single-payer system, the right to health care is paid for through taxes, and people who work hard and pay those taxes are forced to subsidize health care for those who are not employed. In the United States, people already have a right to purchase health care, but they should never have a right to receive health care free of charge.

    Health care is a service that should be paid for, not a right. Those on the Left view rights as commodities and commodities as rights. Here is a hypothetical 2 person scenario: Joe, a medical care provider treats Steve for Epilepsy, migraines, other neurological issues, with the compensation provided by Steve for the service. In your arguing for a single payer model, what would that mean if Joe does not get paid at all, either by Steve or by the government?

    Here are links for you: 1: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/health-care-reform-good-bad-ugly, 2: https://www.cato.org/research/health-savings-accounts, 3: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/grass-is-not-always-greener-look-national-health-care-systems-around-world, 4: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/talking-health-care-reform, 5: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/right-health-care, 6: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/wrong-health-care-0, 7: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/blueprint-healthcare-freedom, 8: https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/is-there-right-health-care, 9: https://www.cato.org/blog/fear-freedom-health-care, 10: https://www.cato.org/blog/better-way-reform-health-care, 11: https://www.cato.org/blog/restore-free-markets-health-care, 12: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

    • Thank you, Ragnar, for your abundant thoughts on the health care issue. Of course, I don’t see it the way you do. I feel that the wealthiest country in the world shouldn’t have citizens going without medical care or going bankrupt because of medical bills. No system is perfect and there will be problems, but there is no reason that the United States shouldn’t have universal health care like every other developed country in the world. It would be nice to live in a country where medical care is guaranteed by the government, and there is no reason to be stressed if you can’t afford it. I understand this not a libertarian position, but it is a humane one.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I agree with people who say that the words health care and profit shouldn’t be used in the same sentence. According to some of what I read about the Canadian health care system, the wait times they have are for elective or voluntary surgeries. There is virtually no waiting time for surgeries that are medically necessary to maintain life according to how that system works from the standpoint of medical care. According to how the system works, you only have to wait to receive care if your situation is not life-threatening. There are some problems with private insurance companies, yes, like having some insurance companies saying that they will pay for one medical treatment or medication over another. Yes, the bureaucracy is also a problem. If we had a system that allows for both a public and private option, I would be fine with that. Barack Obama said that if we like our doctor or health care plan that we can keep them. If we had both a public and private option, that should make everyone happy. The same people saying “keep your laws out of my body” are demanding that the government take control of the entire healthcare industry. Any person who says that he or she wants the law to stay out of his or her body and yet advocates laws that govern our health care would be a hypocrite. The federal government per the 10th amendment has no business getting involved in healthcare. When Obamacare was enacted, Nancy Pelosi said that we had to pass the bill in order to know what was in it. Really? Just read the damn bill, make the information available to the public and then give people the opportunity to vote on it at the ballot box. Relying on logic that we have to pass a bill to know what is in it would be seen as license for government enacting multiple laws and passing many bills and/or laws without the consent of the people. If our medical care and the necessary medications were paid for with our tax dollars, I would say that we could ditch the insurance companies altogether.

        • Having the government in charge of medical care will cause some problems, sure, and is not perfect.. But it’s better than any other system. Every other developed country pays less and gets better care than we do. And nobody goes bankrupt or has to worry about the cost of getting sick. I’ll take socialized medicine over any other system, and so will every other advanced country. What we have now in our country is laughed at by other countries.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I am in agreement with you that no person should be forced to go without medical care. The issue is how it is paid for and who is paying for it. If government paid for our medical care, however, we got the say-so as to which medical care providers we can see, I would not have any problem with that. Just let us decide which medical care providers we want to see and it does not matter what the method of payment is. For the record, my allegedly lengthy responses are not intended solely for you alone. Yes, I may be responding to you specifically, however, my comments are also meant for other people.

  91. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, If health care is a right, maybe advocates of this so-called right can explain how government will pay for it and not diminish the quality of service. A natural right is something we have by by virtue of being born. Assuming that health care was free, which it is not, it will mean that people will clog the system with every little problem that they have. Universal healthcare isn’t free. You just pay for it with higher taxes and higher prices for every day goods and services. Not to mention the healthcare itself sucks. And the government decides what treatment you can or can’t receive. These people who are enamored with the idea of government running the health care industry should go and see for themselves how it works in other countries. “Free healthcare” is not free if the government pays for it. That’s our tax dollars and guess who pays that? This is a small example of why government should stay out of our lives. Socialized medicine is for fools. If government operated the health care industry, what if someone gets lung cancer and the government says it won’t pay for the treatment? What if someone gets liver cancer and government says that it won’t pay for the treatment?

  92. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here is a fix to this issue: Get government out of health care and health insurance. Let people make their own choices and see what the polls say. The inelastic nature of healthcare prices means the individual cannot negotiate lower prices. Margaret Thatcher described Socialism as a system where you run out of other people’s money. To put a slight spin on that using the same logic, the problem with free health care is that you would eventually run out of slaves to provide it for you. Government destroys all that its tentacles get into. The health care we had before the government stepped in and made healthcare required was actually pretty good. Of course that all changed. When the government steps in, things turn to crap. Stuff like this sound great at first, but it really does more harm than good. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Why is everything a right nowadays? Abolish all government healthcare. The same people saying “keep your laws out of my body” are demanding that the government take control of the entire healthcare industry. Is that not a double-standard by its very nature? If Government pays for your health care, government is gonna control your health care. The only real reason American healthcare is so ridiculously expensive is because a bunch of idiots believed a democrat who said, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan. You’ll save thousands a year on your health insurance premiums.” With the fake and phony moral outrage being displayed by people on the Left related to the false and misguided delusion they have that we should have a right to health care, these people obviously feel like they are entitled to a lifetime of care provided by the government. Universal healthcare isn’t free. You just pay for it with higher taxes and higher prices for every day goods and services. Not to mention the healthcare itself sucks. And the government decides what treatment you can or can’t receive. If you ask one person if health care is a right and then they say yes, however, you follow up with the next question as to if you have the right to see the medical care provider of your choice and that person says no, a person who says that is contradicting him or herself in that context.

  93. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the only real arguments for a single payer model that have any credibility would be where it is argued that medical care providers would not have to deal with insurance agencies not paying them for their services, as well as claiming that there are no out of network specialists. My only real concern stems from the possibility of discrimination as to what the government says it will pay for.

  94. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if one argues that a right to health care comes from the government, by this very logic, government can decide which medical needs take priority and which do not. In one comment, another person linked a video where the guy making the presentation was discussing whether or not Paul Ryan believed that health care is a right or a privilege. A better answer that Paul Ryan could have given is where he could have said that the politicians who represent the people have no right to dictate which kind of medical care they can have. At the opening of the video, the guy said that Paul Ryan’s answer was wrong, however, his answer was honest. How is it wrong to say that health care is not a right from the government? By its very nature and definition, a right granted by government means that government can restrict or deny in absolute terms said right. I also find the guy who was laughing as he said it to not be credible. When one person says another person is wrong with what they say while laughing about it, then the person who is implying that the other person is wrong is not credible.

  95. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, people who say that health care is a right in absolute terms just want to use that claim as an excuse to justify abusing the services of medical professionals. If someone says that the pursuit of health care is a right, that is different. Using fake moral outrage as a tactic in debating whether or not someone has a “right” to healthcare is absurd.

    • We will never agree on this.
      But in any event, Ragnar, I have a request. I do enjoy our debates , and the mental challenge involved is a good thing. But, respectfully, I am a very busy person and try not to spend excessive time on the internet. When I see seven or eight posts from you, I feel overwhelmed and obligated to answer them, but they do take up a lot of time. My request: No more than two posts a day, and hopefully not on the subjects we have gone over and over about. Okay?

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, some of my comments are mainly intended for your other readers, not just you personally. My problem is that if we allow government to pay for every person to get medical care, even if there is no out of pocket cost to us, what if one person’s tax dollars are used to pay for someone to have an abortion when the person who is paying for it has no say?

  96. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if you say that health care is an absolute right, how far does it go before the labor of a medical professional is abused? Do we have the right to beat down the door of a medical professional at his or her practice and demand treatment for any medical condition we may have?

    • Where are people beating down the door of medical professionals and demanding treatment? That’s news to be. Please, be realistic. We are merely talking about the government covering health care costs. That what is done in a civilized country.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, I did not mean that in a literal sense. Here is a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxtGepwXaes If we went with the single payer model, that may save more money for people over the long haul, keep them from accumulating expensive medical bills, which may lead them to bankruptcy. My only real problem is that if government says they will pay for someone to have heart surgery, however, they will not also pay for the medication for someone with a neurological disorder, Epilepsy is an example, what is to be done?

  97. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, here are some videos for you: 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlo3x0ba9gc, 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDtt5S6k-U, 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Mj6CasPmc No person has an absolute right to another person’s services, particularly if the person providing the service is not adequately compensated. If we have a right to free health care, what is next? Free Iphones? Free computers? A free car? A free house? Where does it end?

  98. That sounds complicated and a lot of trouble. I just deleted your post and if you want you can write a new one. By the way, are you and Jeffrey Liakos the same person?–Arlen

    • ragnarsbhut says:

      Arlen Grossman, if you are asking me, the answer is no. I know of the man you speak. However, there is no relationship between he and I. What was the reason for the last comment being deleted?

      • I deleted it because you wanted to change it and the whole process seemed to be a lot of work. You are certainly welcome to rewrite it.
        As for Jeffrey, there are many similarities in style and substance between you too. But I promise to treat you like the individual you are.

        • ragnarsbhut says:

          Arlen Grossman, in one comment by the guy you speak of, he posted a video regarding health care being a right or not. The guy making the presentation is being dishonest with his analysis. He omitted the actual answer that Paul Ryan gave to the question of health care being a right or a privilege from the title. For the guy who made the presentation to selectively edit a comment as part of the title of a video automatically causes the guy making the presentation to not be credible.

  99. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, it is a convoluted thing to claim that one has an inherent right to the services of another person without compensating the person for provided service. Here is an example of a service provided: Someone owns and operates a coffee shop where he or she serves their customers daily by providing them with coffee to sip on while on the shop or if the person is on the go. If they say a cup of coffee is $10.00, however, the person tries to weasel their way out of paying for the coffee that they ordered, that is theft of the time, money and labor of the person who made the coffee.

    The same concept applies in the medical industry. If you refuse to pay for the service provided, either upfront and out of pocket or pay with an insurance policy, that is theft of the service of a medical professional. How can any person display such deluded thinking as to wanting to call a good and service provided by medical care providers a right?

    While we want to talk of morality (many people on the Left have a twisted concept of that,) how is it moral for someone to take advantage of the labor of medical professionals and not pay for it, however, it is immoral to say that health care is not a right granted by government? Can you give me a logical answer for this?

    • Under a national health care system, Ragnar, the medical professionals would be paid by the government. So I don’t understand your concern about doctors, etc. not being compensated.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, your points are valid. My concern is that the medical care provider would not be paid enough to maintain functionality of their practices.

        • A valid concern, Ragnar. I imagine medical care providers and the government would have to negotiate acceptable fees. We could look at how other countries, like Canada, do it.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, I have somewhat conflicted opinions on this issue. No person should be required to go broke when dealing with a medical problem. On the other hand, if you have people who claim to want freedom of choice, should they not be able to opt out of having the government paying the bill so they can do that for themselves?

          • You need everyone on board to make national health care work most efficiently, But like in Obamacare, a tax penalty could be charged for those who wish to go it alone. Just like with income taxes, we can’t have people opting out or we wouldn’t have a federal government.

  100. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, if you automatically declare that health care is a right, that would essentially give people license to abuse the services of medical professionals. We already have this issue when we have people who cross over the border illegally from Mexico and get to access our facilities without paying for the services.

    • Anything that is a right can be abused, but that doesn’t mean we throw it out. We have a right to law enforcement, and that can be abused. But that doesn’t mean we should give up that right. If people abuse the system, they should be investigated and if necessary, prosecuted. But let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. I believe health care should be a right in a civilized, compassionate society, even if there will be abuse.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, since this is the case, here are 3 questions for you: Where would you rather see your tax dollars go-to pay for abortions for women who refuse to have sex without necessary protections in place or to pay for the care of combat veterans who return home from war zones? 2: What are your views regarding drug addictions being seen as more of a physical and/or mental health issue and less of a criminal issue? 3: When Paul Ryan said that health care is not a right from the government, is it not unreasonable to assume that the guy in the video that another person posted was deliberately twisting his words by omitting the actual answer from the title of the video in question?

  101. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the biggest problem with a “right” to health care is where the line should be drawn. Why should one person who deals with Epilepsy pay $50, 000.00 for their medications, while a person who deals with high blood pressure pays $60, 000.00 for the medication that they need?

    Any person who believes that all rights are government originated is delusional. Regarding Paul Ryan’s answer that healthcare is not a government-granted right, it seems that he was actually saying that government had no jurisdiction to tell us what type of health care we can have.

    One of the other people who commented made a reference to Epilepsy. If the government only paid for the medication that people who have Epilepsy were prescribed, however, the medical provider had more discretion as to what was prescribed, as well as the dosage, I see no issue with that. What are your thoughts?

    • I am of the opinion that health care should be a right, not a privilege. It seems that every other developed country feels the same way. I don’t like living in a country where an illness results in bankruptcy.

      • ragnarsbhut says:

        Arlen Grossman, if you declare health care as being a right, how far does it have to go before it leads to people abusing the services of medical professionals? Why should any person demand treatment from a medical care provider and not be expected to pay for the service? Can you explain this? Your opinion is merely an opinion. Now, if government only paid the medical expenses, however, each person had more choice in the medical care providers they could see, I have no problem with this. The biggest issue is the regulatory overdrive that takes place in the medical care industry.

        • I just want everybody to have access to health care, ragnarsbhut, without going broke or going without.There is always going to be abuse, just as there is now by insurance companies, doctors and patients. But these abuses, under the current system or with national health care, can be fixed, if we have the will and make the effort. Sure, we don’t want regulatory overdrive, but a certain amount of regulation is necessary.

          • ragnarsbhut says:

            Arlen Grossman, another person posted with a comment referencing Epilepsy and Epilepsy medication. If the government only paid for the medication, however, the primary care physician or the Neurologist had a greater say in the medication being prescribed, that would not be a problem in my opinion.

  102. ragnarsbhut says:

    Arlen Grossman, the biggest problem with the issue of health care is the regulatory overdrive.

  103. Arlen Grossman, if my tax dollars went to fund development of new medications for Epilepsy and a multitude of other conditions, some that can be fatal if untreated, I would have no issue paying more in taxes if I had more of a say as to what the government does with the money. The issue with Kyle Kulinski (the guy who presented the video I linked) is his lack of objective analysis in his presentation. Here is an example of an exchange I can think of that this guy would twist to serve his own purposes between 2 fictitious people: Joe (the patient): “I have the right to the labor of Steve (the Medical Doctor) and I don’t owe him a penny for it.” Steve (the Medical Doctor): “If you have a right to my labor without compensating me for it, that makes me a slave.” There is no right to the labor of another person. A person can provide it, however, that person cannot be forced to provide the service compulsorily. Just saying, “I have an absolute right to health care” is absurd. Kyle Kulinski clearly has had things handed to him that he has not worked for or he just wants to sit on his ass and demand things and using fake and phony moral outrage when he does not get things the way he wants. If you want something, work for it.

  104. Social Contract Theory is the Left’s favorite “go-to” for Healthcare as a right. The problem is, you don’t have an inherit right to another person’s service. That’s slavery. The only way the government can operate is through coercion and force. The moment that government has to infringe rights to create new ones, it has lost its purpose and has violated the Social Contract created by the People to uphold and protect the Constitution. Healthcare is a “positive right”, meaning it has to exist by taking away the rights of others. Government is not our nanny, people should take care of themselves. If Healthcare is a right then someone somewhere is a slave. leftists are still making the same argument that slave owners made, who will provide the food if we don’t force them to do it. I wish progressives would just come clean and admit they are pro slavery at least their arguments would make sense from that perspective. but to argue that every person on the planet has an innate right to the services provided by others because “morality” ignores the fact that these things don’t just pop out of thin air there isn’t a treasure trove of medical care being guarded by an evil leprechaun and if he would just get of the way everyone would live forever. If you want cheaper medicine and health care make it easier to do it. fast track degrees flood the market with qualified people. We should have so many doctors that they spilling over into third world look for patients to help but progressives haven’t heard a regulation they don’t like or a tax that’s to high. even if people will die because of it. All while bitching that we need to help people, if you want to help people, go do it. If healthcare is a right, then someone somewhere is a slave. Leftists are still making the same argument that slave owners made, who will provide the food if we don’t force them to do it. I wish progressives would just come clean and admit they are pro-slavery. At least their arguments would make sense from that perspective. But to argue that every person on the planet has an innate right to the services provided by others because “morality” ignores the fact that these things don’t just pop out of thin air there isn’t a treasure trove of medical care being guarded by an evil leprechaun and if he would just get of the way everyone would live forever. If you want cheaper medicine and health care, make it easier to do it. Fast track degrees flood the market with qualified people. We should have so many doctors that they are spilling over into the third world looking for patients to help, but progressives haven’t heard of a regulation they don’t like or a tax that’s to high. Even if people will die because of it. All while bitching that we need to help people. If you want to help people, go do it. Healthcare is a commodity. It is a good and service. Free speech is a right since it doesn’t come at anyone else’s expense. Anything that costs money to produce, by definition cannot be a right. Healthcare is expensive as hell. Doctors go to school for years and have high salaries as a result. Someone has to pay for it. It’s not free. Therefore, it cannot be a right. The best we can do is allow competition to make it as affordable as possible. As it stands, there is very little competition in the healthcare and insurance industry. Health insurance should be for catastrophic and expensive care. It shouldn’t cover so much other crap that could otherwise be cash based. Therefore, insurance premiums could be very affordable, and since everything under a certain price would be cash based, prices would have to cater to consumers. This would cause a lot of healthcare goods and services to drastically drop in price. And for people who still couldn’t afford healthcare, we could figure something out. But for the majority of the country, we should have affordable private insurance. The guy presenting the video was slandering Ryan’s words here. He said, “Not from the government”. I think that the problem with the guy who is presenting this video is that he believe rights as a concept in and of itself comes from government. As if it’s something the government gives you, which already concedes too much. My personal belief is that medical care can be too expensive in some regards. What the guy in the video I linked wants is “free stuff” and is acting like it is his (and that of other people who thinks as he does) right to demand a good and service that he and other people who thinks as he does have no desire to pay for. Only the criminally insane (libtards) believe that someone else’s labor and property belongs to them rather that the owner of the property and the laborer. These people who say that there should be a right to health care neglect the fact that medical providers do not work for free. The guy who is presenting this video also comes across as a hypocrite. He says that health care should be a right, however, he hypocritically does not want to allow people to decide for themselves by what means they will pay for their medical treatments, that and by depriving these people of the opportunities to make choices regarding what insurance plans they want to purchase. At the end of the presentation, he calls Paul Ryan a liar, which is false, a weasel, which is false, saying that Paul Ryan is wrong in saying that health care is not a right from the government. Government-granted rights by definition means that they can also be taken away by said government. My choice of the words human right was meant to imply that it should be our right to decide what medical treatments we want to pursue, how we want to pay for those treatments.

    • Wow! Do me a favor, Jeffrey, and keep your comments a bit shorter. I like hearing your point of view, but I’m a busy guy and don’t have the time to read long essays, some parts of which are repeated.
      As for the substance, you never did respond to my post asking whether your opinion applies to public safety, fire prevention, education, and mail delivery. Don’t we have the right to a fire fighter, for example? Are fire fighters slaves? Since we are the only developed country where people can go bankrupt for a medical problem, shouldn’t we do something about that? Is compassion a part of the libertarian point of view? I guess not.
      Libertarian/conservative ideology seems to triumph over human needs. Americans can die from medical problems so why shouldn’t the people (government) help its citizens, just like they do for public safety and education. I’d rather have Americans (through their government) helping all its citizens than allowing a handful of billionaires to have more money than the bottom half of the American people. That’s obscene. Where is your compassion, Jeffrey?

      • Arlen Grossman, I would prefer that my tax dollars go to pay for fire fighters and police than subsidizing illegal aliens who cross over the border from Mexico who deposit their children here, which seems to grant them automatic citizenship. In my last comment, I said that when I meant to put than. It is inherently immoral to commit an act of theft. The reason for my last comment being as long as it was is due to the fact that I want for other people who read this post to actually think through what they will write in a comment in order to avoid making themselves look stupid in the process. My response was to you specifically, however, for any other person who comments, this response was largely intended for them. Here is something to illustrate my point: A guy goes into a doctor’s office with a medical problem, claiming that he has the right to the service of said doctor, however, refusing to pay for it in the process. What gives someone an automatic right to the service of another person if the person who is soliciting the service refuses to compensate the person providing said service? To use a hypothetical example, here is one that I can think of: I own and operate a coffee shop, which needs money to remain functional. Unless I had a cap on how many cups can be served, say 2, with cup number 3 being free of charge, why should the customers not pay for the service I provide them by giving them 2 cups of coffee at a set price, while excluding the last cup from any set fee? Why should they get a pass for not paying for the 2 cups of coffee that had been provided? The fact that something is really important doesn’t make it a right. That’s not what “rights” are. Free healthcare is forced labor. Who do you think is taking care of the patient? The doctor. How would he get paid, keep up with tools, assistance, how will he get the drugs needed for people. That stuff is not cheap, yet people want free healthcare. Free healthcare is forced labor. Part of the issue is that almost 43 million people in the US have medical bills they have not paid. The Affordable Care Act was supposed to help fix this, but it was a disaster that made insurance significantly more expensive than it was before, and healthcare costs didn’t go down either despite more being insured. Furthermore, the billing system for hospitals is broken. You can get a bill for lab work from the hospital, the 3rd party lab, and find out that your insurance actually covered it anyway. Also, the price on each of those is not necessarily going to be the same. Besides that, following the constant changes from CMS to know what you can bill for, how much, how to code it, etc. is insane. Bills are kicked back all the time for errors. Those bills may get lost or never be corrected. I’m not convinced letting the government run the whole show is the answer. The solution should include both government programs and the private sector. Pointing at Medicare and saying it works does not paint the whole picture. If it was so great, why are there Medicare supplements? I don’t think the answer is one thing we can point to and say “That’s it!” To further complicate the issue is the fact that both sides of congress hate each other so much, it is not possible at this time to have them sit down and form a reasonable solution without it being so over complicated and full of pork that it will be yet another disaster. And this is an issue we need both sides for. I don’t think having one side draft the solution their way and pushing it though will pay off for all Americans. If Kyle Kulinski (the guy making the video I posted) had provided a more objective analysis, he might have had some semblance of credibility. The point of “free” healthcare is the same as all other “free” handouts: Votes for the democrats. If the only thing that government did was pay for the consultation with a medical specialist (with our tax dollars,) however, we were able to choose at will which medical specialists we can see, then I will say that I might not have an issue with government paying for our health care. From a tax standpoint, if I was in a 30% tax bracket, however, there was no set regulation as to how much medication I could get for any condition I have, I would have no problem with that. Back to my Epilepsy reference (something I do have,) if I could get the medication I need with no out of pocket cost due to my tax dollars covering that, I could care less how high my taxes are. Like I said in another post, if my tax dollars were spent responsibly, I could care less how high my taxes are. Now, I get that responsibly spent might be subjective, however, to use my 30% tax bracket example, if any medication I needed to treat my Epilepsy came to me without restriction on how much I can get at any given time because I was in that bracket, I would have no real issue with this personally. One thing I do not like about government involvement in the health care industry is that government could take my tax dollars and use those for things that I object to. Funding Planned Parenthood with our tax dollars is another thing I do not condone.

  105. Arlen Grossman, I am on your side in some regards. My issue with government getting into the equation is that government can discriminate at will as to what medications will be paid for and which will not be paid for. From the standpoint of my Epilepsy example, I have that condition myself. Were I to get the medication I need with no out of pocket cost because that is what my tax dollars paid for, I would not gripe about my taxes being too high in that context. In a sense, I am very much on your side. Do I want to give insurance companies all of the power to dictate what they will pay for from the standpoint of medical care? Not at all. Where we seem to differ is to whether or not we should let the government pay for it (with our tax dollars) or allowing the people to decide what insurance policies they want to purchase, so their insurance could cover the costs. Were I to be in a 30% tax bracket, 40%, maybe 50%, if there was no restriction on how much medication I could get, I would only have to be concerned with the prescription being renewed. So I agree with the guy’s premise that insurance companies should not have too much power. My only real issue with him is his lack of objectivity in his presentations.

  106. Arlen Grossman, Social Contract Theory is the only argument that the left wing can make regarding a “right” to health care. The guy who presents the linked video clearly misrepresented Paul Ryan’s statement. A statement that health care is not a right or a privilege from the government is in no way claiming that it is not a right at all. Based on the title alone, the guy presenting the video is clearly being dishonest and not providing objective analysis. He selectively edited Paul Ryan’s answer to make Paul Ryan out to be a liar. I find it to be amusing when a Leftist political type speaks of social contract when they have no real clue as to what it means. “Not from the government” essentially means that government has no right to dictate where, how, when and under what circumstances you can get medical treatment. This is the point that Paul Ryan was making. I get the fact that those on the Left are incapable of understanding that no person has the right to the labor of another person, however, these people need to wake up and catch a clue.

    • Arlen Grossman says:

      Well, Jeffrey, sounds like you reject police officers, firemen, mail carriers, and teachers, too. Nobody has a right to their labor, either. And we shouldn’t have veterans seeking medical care from the VA.

      • Arlen Grossman, you are way off base. My problem with the guy who is presenting this video is that he clearly thinks that he (and all other Leftists) have the right to the labor of other people. From the standpoint of a human right to health care, I used the words human right to illustrate my belief that we should be free to make our own decisions regarding our health care. Social Contract Theory is the only real argument that those on the Left can make regarding a “right” to health care. Back to my example of Epilepsy medication, if I had to pay a higher tax rate in order to get the benefits lower out of pocket costs for the medication, I would not object to that. The only issue I have with the guy making the presentation is that there is no objective analysis on his part. When he says that Paul Ryan was honest, however completely wrong from the way of thinking of the guy making the presentation, he was almost laughing as he said it. Watch the video from the opening to the conclusion, then tell me that his analysis is not biased. “Is health care a right or a privilege?” “Not from the government.” Most of the people who say that medical care as a right should originate from the government neglect the fact that if government can give something as a right, government can take that away. “Not from the government” seems to me to be Paul Ryan’s way of saying that government should have no say so in where, how, when and under what circumstances we can get medical treatment. Now, to be fair, Medicare and Social Security are programs that the government runs. The big problem with the guy in the video is that he is making Paul Ryan sound like a hypocrite, where he says that Paul Ryan says that health care is not a right from the government and then coming out of left field where he claims that Paul Ryan is saying that it is a right. There was the part that I mentioned about the guy omitting from the title of his video the last part of Paul Ryan’s answer. It is all too clear to me that this guy is drinking the Kool-Aid. No person has the right to mooch off of another person, nor does one person have the right to demand services from another person without compensating them for it. You can’t force someone to provide a good and service to you. That is slavery by definition.

  107. Arlen Grossman, the fact of the matter is that Doctors have bills that they need to pay. Yes I did use the words human right in reference to health care. To elaborate, here is what I meant: We have the human right to pursue treatment options for whatever we may have. That does not mean that we have the right to demand services without compensating medical professionals who provide them. I know that Leftists view rights as commodities and commodities as rights. However, they rely on twisted logic as the basis for their delusions. Getting a good and service without paying for it is theft. Health care is only a right until you run out of slaves to provide it for you. As of the video where the guy who makes his presentation of what Paul Ryan said, he clearly edited out part of Paul Ryan’s answer in the title in order to make Paul Ryan look bad in the eyes of some of his viewers. When he said that the way Paul Ryan answered the interviewer’s question was honest, completely wrong but honest, he was laughing as he said it. Laughing as you are saying something, unless you intend for something to be seen as humorous, discredits what you are saying, thus making your analysis not objective. Any person who says that health care is a right from the government clearly wants free stuff. People who say that government has no right to interfere in a doctor-patient relationship do not want their privacy to be violated, which government can do if you give the government that kind of power. What about the politicians who say that they want to deny us freedom of choice regarding our medical care and yet they want that very freedom for themselves. If government was only paying for medical care, paying for the medications that we need through our tax dollars not dictating which Doctors we can see, that is different. I know that Leftists want to reward laziness and keep people trapped in perpetual dependence upon the government. I also find it offensive how these people who claim that we should have a right to health care exempt themselves from the very system that they want to impose upon the rest of us. I wish these politicians could be indicted on charges of hypocrisy for their exempting themselves from a health care system that they want to impose upon the rest of us. Another thing I would like to see is this guy who makes the presentation go to a medical facility and demand treatment for any condition that he has. If he is told that he has to get in line, to pay for the appointment out of pocket or through an insurance policy, his tune would very likely change.

    • A couple of points, Jeffrey. One, I think the video you refer to is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaks8Bzv-j4. I agree with the host Kyle: Health care should be a right, not a privilege. He made a good case why. Clearly I disagree with Ryan. Two, you continue to use broad-brush stereotypes, e.g. “Leftists want to reward laziness….etc.” Those types of generalizations are lazy and ineffective. Third, as far as politicians being exempt from the health care system, it just isn’t so. Read this:https://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/
      I don’t know what sources you use, but you might want to question them.
      Finally, In my opinion, you rely too much on ideology, and not enough on people, especially those who need help the most. Have a nice day.

      • Arlen Grossman, I see no problem rendering aid and assistance to people who need it. The problem is that the guy presenting the video relies on utilizing arguments for a right to health care that are based on emotion, not logic and common sense. He also uses the term social contract to back up the notion that we have the right to the labor of other people. Giving legitimacy to the state (I know that those on the far Left and some on the far Right want that) ultimately leads to the state being enabled to unnecessarily abuse its power. You also never directly addressed my example of Epilepsy as a medical condition, which can be fatal if untreated. Now, if the government only paid for medication like that through our tax dollars, I see no real issue with that. However, Medical Doctors are responsible for prescribing them. If the Doctor prescribed them, however, our tax dollars went to pay for them, I have no issue with that.

        • I’m confused, Jeffrey. If you see no problem rending aid and assistance to people who need it, isn’t that government health care? Same thing with paying for medication for epilepsy? Sounds like you’re on my side.

          • Arlen Grossman, I am on your side in the sense that I do not want to give private insurance companies too much power. It seems to me that what Paul Ryan was really saying was that he did not want to give government the power to make decisions regarding our medical care that we should be free to make for ourselves. From my way of thinking, the guy who is making the presentation does have some valid points to make. Paul Ryan also has very valid points to make. To start with the guy making the point about private health insurance companies, I agree with him in the sense that private insurance companies can abuse their power and ripoff their customers by not paying for the medical care that their customers purchased the policy for. Regarding Paul Ryan’s point about whether or not health care should be a right granted by government or not, if a government can grant you a certain right, by that very logic, government can take it away. Regarding my reference to the matter of Epilepsy medication, if government paid for it (through our tax dollars,) however, there was no overall discrimination as to what medications they paid for, regardless of what medication the Doctor prescribed, I say no harm, no foul. All I can do is view the social contract argument that the guy presenting the video makes with a certain degree of disdain. One thing the guy making the presentation does as he is saying that Paul Ryan is wrong, however, he was being honest, is laughing as he said it. Not only does laughing as you say something like that make you look silly, it also makes you out not to be credible, definitely not objective, with the rest of your analysis. The guy also contradicted himself when he said that Paul Ryan was honest at the beginning of the video, then said that he is a liar at the end. Which one is it-is he being honest or is he a liar? You can’t have it both ways. Of course, with people on the Left, they want free stuff and are not willing to get their hands dirty. You said at one point that I sound like a libertarian to you. A lot of people try to paint all libertarians as having anarchistic mentalities. There is a difference between someone who says, “I just want to be free to live my life in peace as long as I do no harm to other people” and a person who says, “I want to abolish all rules and have a free for all society.” Related to my Epilepsy reference, the fact that medication is needed to manage it, if government (through our tax dollars) paid for it, however, it was left to the medical professional who prescribed it to decide the correct dosage, as well as the best medication, if I had to pay more in taxes and had to pay no out of pocket cost for the medication I was prescribed, I would not object to that. Here is an example of a tax bracket: 30%. If I I as a person who has Epilepsy made enough money that put me up to that level, which resulted in me getting the medication either free of charge because that was what my tax dollars paid for, or having very little out of pocket cost, I would be willing to pay that tax rate with no hesitation. What I don’t like about the right to health care argument is the fact that if government can grant that as a right, government can take it away. Look at what our representatives did to us. They forced Obamacare on us and exempted themselves.

          • Why do I get the impression, Jeffrey, you don’t even read what I write?  Go back to my October 2 post, when I objected to your broad brushing of “all leftists.” And I provided a link that refutes your claim that Congress is exempt from Obamacare. Yet you go ahead and continue generalizing about the Left                                                                     (They want free stuff and are afraid to get their hands dirty) and saying the false claim that Congress is exempt from Obamacare. Try to be more original. I know you can do better.

  108. Arlen Grossman, you may be interested in things that are based in fact, however, from what I have heard and read, many Leftist political types don’t seem to be interested in facts unless these facts suit their narratives. In the video where the guy from Secular Talk speaks of a 0% tax rate and a 100% tax rate, he says that people should have a right to health care, that people should have a right to education. Both statements are merely opinions. People can choose to study things and learn about what they study. People can also opt to be ignorant and clueless about how the world works. From the standpoint of having a right to health care, people should only have this right insofar as they want to pursue of their own volition treatment options for whatever they have. Look at the politicians who claimed the right to exempt themselves from Barack Obama’s healthcare plan, all the while screwing us over in the process. A glaring hypocrisy is evident there. The guy presenting the video said that Paul Ryan was wrong when he said that health care was not a right or a privilege from the government, however, he was honest. As he was saying that, he was almost laughing in how he said what he said. That alone makes the guy presenting the video not credible or objective. Clearly, at least as I can tell, the guy presenting the video is delusional in his thinking. Leftists believe in government originated rights, not individual rights. Government also abuses its authority from time to time. Look at countries that have dictatorial regimes, for example. They are the worst. If you are familiar with the Star Trek franchise created by Gene Roddenberry, one species found in there would be what are called Borg. The Borg have a collectivist mindset, with no deviating from their routine allowed. Leftist political types are the same way. Relying on and using disingenuous fake moral outrage regarding the fact that government should provide us with health care as a debate tactic is absurd. any right granted by government means that government can take it away on a whim. As I correctly noted, the guy making the presentation omitted the part of Paul Ryan’s statement where Paul Ryan said, “Not from the government,” when asked about health care being a right or a privilege. Making equivalent the claim of health care not being a government originated right to mean that we do not have the right to pursue our own courses of treatment is absurd. One thing that Paul Ryan could have said, which would have destroyed the credibility of what this guy was saying is that government officials have no jurisdiction to come between a Doctor and a patient from a legal standpoint. When people get to the point where insurance coverage is non-existent across the board and that they will have to pay for medical care expenses out of pocket, the likelihood that these people will bitch about the “right” to health care will decrease or become non-existent.

  109. Arlen Grossman, I know that my 2 comments where I said that health care was not a right and my referencing if Paul Ryan said it was a human right seem to be contradictory. In the strictest sense, health care is not a right, but a commodity. We have a human right to pursue our own courses of treatment. So we have that right. What we do not have is the right to do is demand medical treatment and be unwilling to compensate medical professionals for it. I know that you (and many other Leftists) want something (free stuff) for nothing (being able to weasel your way out of paying the required price for the services being provided.) Just saying that people should have a right to health care is an opinion, not a fact. Social Contract Theory as the basis for the “right” to health care is an absurd argument to make. We do not have an inherent right to the services of other people. To claim that we do only makes the people providing said services slaves. I know that Leftist political types don’t give a damn about facts, however the fact is that nobody has the right to the labor of other people, period. As of the video I linked, the guy who presented this video, as well as many Leftist political types, use the Social Contract Theory as a basis for the right to health care, as well as playing on people’s emotions. This guy, as well as many Leftist political types, also rely on the utilization of guilt tripping and playing on people’s emotions to get their way. The only time you can get “free stuff” legitimately is if you buy one or two items, resulting in getting the last item free of charge. In the video, the guy making the presentation clearly edited out Paul Ryan’s comment that health care is not a right from the government. So, Leftists don’t give a shit about facts, at least unless they can make up their own facts. The guy who presented the video at the opening said that Paul Ryan was asked a pretty straightforward question about health care, that how Paul Ryan was completely wrong, however, he was honest in his answer. Paul Ryan said, “Not from the government,” when he was asked about health care being a right or a privilege. As the guy who says that Paul Ryan was wrong, he actually was laughing as he said that. Clearly this guy knows that what he is saying is bullshit. A right granted by government means that government can be taken away. Look at places where government runs medical care. The quality of service is a shit show. The only points that this guy made that have credibility are his referencing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He cited that under Medicare that 94% of those expenditures go to actual medical care. If you have a patient who has Epilepsy and the government refuses to pay for the medication through our tax dollars, the person in question is screwed because they may not be able to afford the out of pocket costs of the medication that they need.

    • This is an issue we’ve beaten into the ground, Jeffrey. I think government should provide health care for its citizens, you think otherwise. We’re not ever to agree on this. I do have a request, Jeffrey, please don’t use such such disrespectful blanket statements such as Leftists “don’t give a shit about facts.” As a “leftist” myself, I do care about facts. Our opinions may differ, but I do care about facts. I expect better of you, Jeffrey.

      • Arlen Grossman, here are some facts for you: 1: People who go to medical school have tuition costs, that for room and board when on campus, that for the books they need to study their chosen field. 2: Medical care is not cheap. When I say that government should not be overly involved, here is the gist of what I mean: If government decided selectively what medications it would pay for, then a lot of people would be screwed if the government (through our tax dollars) did not pay for the medications and/or medical care for these people. My claim that Leftists don’t give a shit about facts may sound extreme, however, outside of your blog, I have looked up other sources of information that have Left-leaning inclinations and am admittedly skeptical of the details that they provide. Outside of your blog, as well as some of the websites you suggested I look into, the only other person who I would say has any credibility with his presentations is David Pakman.

        • Thank you for trusting me,Jeffrey, but I disagree that Leftists don’t give a shit about facts. I think it is right-wing blogs who don’t care about facts. Case in point, President Trump disregards facts several times a day usually, and righties seldom, if ever, call him for it. And really, Jeffrey, you, who have nice things to say about Alex Jones, shouldn’t be lecturing others about facts!

          • Arlen Grossman, I know that I had used the words human right in the context of health care. To clarify as to what I mean, here is further explanation: I believe that we should have the right to decide what course of treatment we pursue for whatever medical conditions we may have. Hence my use of the words human right. Despite what the guy says in the video regarding government being able to pay for our medical care better than a private insurance company, where is the proof?

          • You keep referring to a video, Jeffrey. Which video is that? And whatever health care system you prefer, the question must be asked: “What if you can’t afford the medical treatment?” That’ s a reality for millions of Americans. And private insurance companies are not much good for that.

          • Arlen Grossman, the video I speak of is that which was titled Paul Ryan: Healthcare Isn’t A Right. Just saying that because something is not a right from the government translates to it not being a right at al has no basis in reality. When I had made reference to the concept of human rights regarding health care, my point was that we should be free to make our own choices, pay for our own medical care. Free health care exists in the minds of entitled Leftists.

          • Yet citizens in other developed countries have access to health care, even if they’re poor. In our system, if you can’t afford health insurance you’re screwed. Americans who can’t afford health insurance may be free, but they just might be dead. We’re the richest country in the world (although the money is mostly at the top), surely we can relieve that burden from our less fortunate citizens?  Obviously, you don’t agree because, if I may say so, you believe ideology trumps human needs. That’s why we see it differently.

  110. Arlen Grossman, back to my health care being a human right reference, I used the word human right in the sense that we should have the right to decide what health care we can pursue. To further illustrate, I will say this: We have a right to life. What we do not have is the right to demand treatment and be unwilling to compensate our medical professionals who see to helping us with these issues. A right granted by government means that government can take it away on a whim. So a right granted by government means we have it until we don’t have it. As to the video, the guy making the presentation says that government is factually and empirically better at paying for our medical care than private insurance companies. With Medicare and Medicaid, both being government-sponsored types of insurance, this is true at least from that standpoint. I looked up your link. The Washington Post, The New York Times-both are less credible than Infowars. I am not going to defend everything that Alex Jones or Infowars will say about things. Having said that, at least Alex Jones says enough to tip the scales in his favor. Police brutality and abuses of power, abuses of the civil liberties of U.S. citizens without legitimate grounds-Alex Jones is right about all of that.

    • If you think Alex Jones is more reliable than Alex Jones, you’ve lost me. Jones is insane. If the NY Times or Washington Post make a mistake, they will have a correction. If Alex Jones and Donald Trump make mistakes or lies–which they do constantly–they won’t admit it. It is clear to me why we differ so much politically. It is our news sources. You probably believe what Fox News, Limbaugh and Jones say, while I rely more on the newspapers you mention, as well as MSNBC and CNN. That is a wide gulf among news sources. And it tells us a lot about the sharp divisions politically in this country.

      • Of course I meant to say” those newspapers” instead of Alex Jones twice in. the first sentence.

      • Arlen Grossman, I find it to be absurd that those on the Left talk about social contract when they have no real understanding as to what it means. To say that people should get something like medical care without paying for it leads to abuses in the system.

        • A civilized country provides medical care, Jeffrey, so its citizens don’t suffer or go broke paying for it. Every other developed country fulfills that obligation. I guess it doesn’t bother you that Americans go bankrupt over medical bills, or are not able to afford treatment they need. That’s our difference, It bothers me.

          • Arlen Grossman, libertarians speak of negative rights. Those are rights that cannot be taken away. Leftists believe in positive rights. All people on the Left want would be handouts and free everything. Newsflash: “Free stuff” has to be paid for somehow. When I used the words human right, I was speaking to the fact that we should have the right to pursue our own courses for medical treatment. We already have government sponsored medical care (Medicare and Medicaid) and both programs are going broke.

          • Jeffrey, Medicare and Medicaid are a long way from going broke. And the American people are quite happy with these programs, and if there were a commitment to them in Congress they would be much better off.

          • Arlen Grossman, I cannot understand why people like the guy in the video I linked feel that they have the right to the labor of other people. Just asking if it is immoral to let people go bankrupt over accumulated medical bills is a tactic of manipulation. Saying that health care is too expensive in many regards is a valid point. My issue with the guy in the video who speaks of a right to health care is that he takes for granted the fact that we have better medical facilities than many other countries. My use of the words human right was meant to imply that we should have the right to pursue whatever medical treatment we need. The guy’s 2 examples about the questions as to if it is moral to allow people to go bankrupt over medical bills is easily debunked because we have health insurance plans that we pay for that foot the bills, as well as the question as to if it is moral to let people bleed out in the street are based on emotional appeal.

  111. Arlen Grossman, I know that I used the words human right in the context of health care. To clarify, here is the gist of what I mean: We should have the right to decide what medical care we want to pursue for whatever ails us. My issue with the right to health care argument that those on the Left want a good and service that they don’t want to pay for. The fake and phony moral outrage from people who cannot accept the fact that we don’t have an inherent right to the services of other people is very revealing about their moocher mentalities. Free college, free medical care-these will have to be paid for somehow. We already have medical care which is sponsored by government (Medicare and Medicaid,) which satisfies the delusions about medical care being seen as a government-granted right. With the guy in the video who is making his presentation that I posted, he clearly has been indoctrinated into believing things that are not accurate.

  112. Arlen Grossman, here is the question Paul Ryan was asked: “Is health care a right or a privilege?” When Paul Ryan said, “Not from the government,” he was basically saying, however, not in so many words, that we should decide what medical care we want to pursue for ourselves, not having government mandate to us what medical care we receive. Social contract and the General Welfare clause in the U.S. Constitution being used as arguments for claiming that health care is a right are absurd arguments. If someone faces a terminal illness and the government decides not to pay for it, then government is giving the person in question the middle finger. So this guy’s claim that government is better at paying for our medical care than private health insurance companies is nonsense. The only valid points the guy presenting this video made are about the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the military industrial complex and the Wall Street bailouts. Every other point is reliant on appeal to emotion. The guy in the video talks about morality (when the Left has no morality) as an excuse to back up his baseless claims. He cites a 94% statistic about Medicare going to pay for actual medical care. Since Barack Obama sent Medicare into bankruptcy in order to pay for Obamacare, this negates the point that the guy in the video made. Social contract and general welfare as justifications for the right to health care are bullshit arguments to make. Anybody who says that health care is a right and yet wants to deny us by legal means the right to pursue whatever medical care we want is a hypocrite.

    • Jeffrey, you say ” not having government mandate to us what medical care we receive.” Government insurance will guarantee affordable access to health care, but nobody tells you if or how you use that health care.
      And “Since Barack Obama sent Medicare into bankruptcy in order to pay for Obamacare,” is just plain false.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/14/paul-ryans-false-claim-that-because-of-obamacare-medicare-is-going-broke/?utm_term=.5ea8bfaa885b
      And why would you assume government “wants to deny us by legal means the right to pursue whatever medical care we want” Nobody would stop you getting medical care any place you wanted.

      • Arlen Grossman, if government is demonstrably better at paying for my medical care than a private insurance company, then I can accept the premise of your argument. Now, if paying more in taxes resulted in a lower cost of a medication that I might need for the long term, mainly because that would be something my tax dollars would cover, I see no problem with that. You and I seem to agree that medical care can be too expensive. My only real issue is that I would like to have more say so as to what my tax dollars pay for. Here is an example of a medical condition that affects a lot of people: Epilepsy. Should there be no restriction on how much medication can be paid for on a monthly or yearly basis from our tax dollars for people who have this condition, how much medication can be supplied per patient, I see no problem with that. So, on principle, I don’t disagree that health care can be more affordable. What I object to is paying for medical care for people who cross over the border from Mexico illegally. Another thing I find objectionable is when my tax dollars subsidize organizations like Planned Parenthood. The only reason I object to the right to health care argument from those on the Left is that people who cross over the border from Mexico get it faster than the rest of us, all without paying for it.

      • Arlen Grossman, if government (through our tax dollars) kept the out of pocket costs for medical appointments low, I would concede that government would probably be better in that context. Now, if you have someone with a medical condition that is life-threatening if untreated that government refuses to pay for, that person is screwed. From the video I linked, I don’t necessarily disagree with the guy’s point that health care should have a greater degree of affordability. However, his claim that government is better at paying for our medical care than we are or that an insurance company is causes me to be skeptical.

  113. Arlen Grossman, back to what Paul Ryan was saying, where he said health care is not a government granted right, Leftist political types only want “free” health care so they can mooch off of the labor of these medical professionals. They also speak of a right to that so they can justify the idea that they can relieve themselves of any guilt regarding their taking advantage of the labor of other people. Ever since the Progressive era, despite the positive sounding nature of progress, we have gone downhill. Leftist political types produce propaganda and want to have a collectivist mentality, with no room for different opinions. Here is an example of a medical condition which affects many people: Epilepsy. If anti-convulsant drug prices are paid for by the government, government could discriminate as to which medications patients who have Epilepsy can receive. How would you feel if you knew someone who has that condition and they could not get the medication they need because government raises the price of it? Back to the video, any person who says that we should have a right to health care (which we don’t) and advocates policies that price us out of plans that we want to purchase is a hypocrite. People on the right believe in being charitable with their own resources, while people on the Left believe in being charitable with the resources of other people.

    • You don’t give up, do you, Jeffrey? We’ve gone over and over on this issue and your viewpoint will never change. Nor mine. It comes down to a matter of values, and we have different values and see the world very differently. Let’s let this subject rest.

      • Arlen Grossman, if my extra tax dollars went to pay for the care of combat veterans, I would be willing to pay more in taxes. If my tax dollars went to fund research to develop medicines for a wide variety of medical conditions, I would be willing to pay more in taxes. Just let me make the decision as to where my extra tax dollars go. Can you not see the glaring hypocrisy behind the claim that we should have a right to health care and yet we are priced out of the plans that we want to buy? By allowing government to pay for our medical care, which we should not, we are making ourselves slaves to the system. “Everyone’s access to health care trumps libertarian ideology.” Those were your exact words. Just because something is accessible, that does not mean that you have an automatic right to it. Movie theaters are accessible, so we can go freely to see one movie or another. We do not have the right to insist that movie theaters be built, however. Here is an example of a right that we all have: To give our business to people who we want to. If I was a coffee shop manager and you were to come in for a cup of coffee, you would exercise your right to give me the business, as well as giving me the pleasure of providing the service to you. This is a voluntary exchange. We don’t have an inherent right to the services of other people. Here is an example of a right that the government should not have been given: The right to tax our income. Leftist political types whine and bitch about the wealthy not paying their fair share in taxes.

        • We will never agree on this one, Jeffrey. I believe any civilized, decent government would make sure EVERYONE has at least food, shelter, and health care (many other countries do it). In order to do that, taxes have to be collected, and more from those who have benefited from our system. You obviously feel otherwise. We both can agree that our tax dollars should be better used. But it would be chaotic if everyone picked and chose where they want the money to go. We let our elected representatives decide that. And yes, they will make the wrong decisions in our eyes, partly because we have different priorities, but also because the political system is so corrupted by money, i.e. the crony capitalist system we have now. There are no easy answers, Jeffrey. I wish there were.

          • Arlen Grossman, how can we not have some area of agreement regarding what I have said? Did you overlook my 2 statements at the beginning of my earlier comment? You are operating under a false premise. Another thing is that you are taking a lot of what I said out of context.

          • Sorry, Jeffrey, sometimes I don’t have a “reply” button on some posts, so I’ll answer here. Please give me specifics about what we could agree on, any false premises, and examples of what I’ve taken out of context. I’m not clear about what you are referring to.

          • Arlen Grossman, we seem to agree that health care has some aspects where it can be too expensive. I never said that I believe that people should be forced to go without health insurance. We already have government operated medical care (Medicare and Medicaid) that insures people who are elderly and people who are poor. The only argument for the right to health care that this guy in the video I linked provides is that which is based on emotion only. Why not let me decide where my tax dollars go? If my tax dollars go to fund initiatives that produce more effective treatments for neurological disorders, this is one area where I would not be overly concerned as to how my tax dollars are used or how high my tax rate is. That is one example. Should people have access to medical care? I would say so, however, I believe that people should be free to buy an insurance policy of their choosing or pay for their medical appointments out of pocket if they wish. Having access to health care and medical facilities is a good thing. The problem is that if government runs it, government can spend medical facilities into bankruptcy without repercussions. Would I object to higher taxes if my money was spent better? No. Would I feel like I was being ripped off if I said I wanted my tax dollars to go to fund medical treatments for people who are here legally (be they citizens by birth or if they immigrated here from other countries through proper channels?) Not at all.

  114. Regarding your June 11 post, Jeffrey: We are essentially going over the same issues and will never change each other’s minds. Still, I will comment. I reject that using government services will make people dependent on the government. That may be true for a few, but I don’t think it applies to most people. Government service to me is a helpful thing that helps us run a civilized society. It can always be improved, but ill is better than having greedy capitalists bleeding citizens in order to maximize profits. You only end up with giants corporations, like insurance companies, trying to make money off ordinary citizens while giving the least possible services, as we have with our current health care model. Only the government stands in the way of greedy corporations ripping off ordinary people. That said, we must always make sure the government is not corrupt, just as we must do the same for big corporations.

    • Arlen Grossman, the reason people choose to pursue medical degrees is because they seem to believe that it is their calling. My linking the video was deliberate. The guy says that government is better at paying for our health care than we are. Near the opening of the video, Paul Ryan was asked if health care is a right or a privilege. When Paul Ryan said, “Not from the government,” he was saying that we should not give government power over our lives to make decisions that we should be able to make on our own that govern our health. In one of the comments a person asked, “Why do you feel like you have a right to someone’s labor”? A following commenter said that the guy who presented the video was taking Paul Ryan’s comment out of context, pointing out that Paul Ryan was actually implying that government should not be able to tell us what kind of health care we can have. Making an automatic leap from saying that health care is not a right from the government is equivalent to saying that it is not a right at all is fundamentally dishonest. The guy in the video was oversimplifying what Paul Ryan said, making himself look like a dumb-shit. I also came across a comment where a person said that we do not have the right to another person’s labor or property, so in that context health care is not a right. Here are a few questions that I have for your consideration: 1: Why should our tax dollars subsidize drug addicts on welfare when they consciously choose to fuck their minds up with this shit? 2: If Paul Ryan had said that government had no right to dictate what medical treatment you can have, would this not destroy the credibility of the idiot who was presenting this video? Also, this guy uses appeal to emotion only to back up his claims, not balancing it with logic. 3: Why should we be forced to subsidize health care for people who cross over the border illegally from Mexico when they should get their shit in order instead of freeloading off of the United States, so as to get hospital visitations without paying for them?

  115. As of the video that I linked, the guy who presents the video is clearly not credible. He only says that health care is a right so he and other people like him can feel good about taking advantage of the labor of other people without having to pay a penny for it. When Paul Ryan said that health care is not a right from the government, he was saying that government had no legitimate jurisdiction to impose a law that mandates one system upon a whole nation. So, health care is not a right. Health care is a commodity, a good and service. For the record, if government provides this for free, government can then take it away. These politicians who say that health care is a right want to price people out of the insurance plans that they want to purchase so as to guarantee that they will stay in perpetual dependence on the government, basically making the politicians who say that health care is a right out to be hypocrites.

    • We’ve gone back and forth on this many times, Jeffrey. In my opinion, if you truly cared about people you would not want them to go without health care, even if they lack money,
      Everyone’s access to health care trumps libertarian ideology.

      • Arlen Grossman, if my money was not being used to fund abortion on demand, a policy that many Leftist political types condone, I would not give a damn about what other health care initiatives are undertaken that benefits us all. With that video I linked, near the end of it, the guy called Paul Ryan a liar, a weasel and said that what he was saying is wrong. The guy in the video is ignorant of the fact that someone will have to pay the medical bills, either through an insurance policy or out of pocket.

        • I looked at the video you are referring to, Jeffrey, and I have no problem with it. Sure, someone will have to pay the medical bills. Better it be the government (who can do it more efficiently) than insurance companies (who work to avoid paying for health care). Think about it, why are all the other developed countries not willing to imitate our health care system? Because it costs more, is less efficient, and doesn’t cover everyone.

          • Arlen Grossman, if my tax dollars went to fund initiatives like helping people who have degenerative neurological conditions, as well as other things, excluding paying for women to get abortions on demand because they refuse to have the necessary protections in place when having sex with male counterparts, I would not have an issue with that personally. Another issue is that if you give government too much power over our lives, as Paul Ryan correctly noted, we will always be kept in perpetual dependency upon the government. Why do you want to be kept in perpetual dependency? Also, health care is a commodity, not a right. So, basically, the guy in the video is the real liar, not Paul Ryan. Can you deny the fact that people who bitch about health care being a right and yet want to price people out of the insurance coverage that they want to buy are hypocrites by definition? Here is an example of a medical condition that affects a lot of people: Epilepsy, which needs treatment through anticonvulsant drugs. If government is put in charge of paying for these medications, there might be discrimination against people with one form of the condition over another, making one medication more expensive than the other.

  116. In the Constitution there is a phrase “promote the general welfare.” I believe healthcare is a right in a civilized country. American citizens should not have to worry they will go bankrupt because they couldn’t afford their medical bills.
    I suspect you and I will never agree about this.

  117. Who said “free” healthcare?” I support universal (single-payer) government-sponsored health care.

  118. My view is that in a civilized country, everyone should have a right to healthcare. My view is shared by every other developed nation.

    • Arlen Grossman, people who say that healthcare is not a right from the government are not saying that it is not a right at all. This is one thing that Leftist idiots (pardon the redundant statement) do not understand. Here is a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaks8Bzv-j4 The dumb-shit who is presenting the video clearly did not listen to what Paul Ryan was saying. He titled his video Paul Ryan: Healthcare Isn’t A Right. What he omitted was the latter part of Paul Ryan’s statement, where Paul Ryan said that it was not a government granted right. If he had said it was a human right, the guy who presented the video would have had no credibility with his distorted representation of Paul Ryan’s statement. Paul Ryan said healthcare is not a government granted right. If it was a government granted right, then government can give it or take it on a whim.

      • So if healthcare is a human right, who, if not the government, will ensure that right? How can somebody with limited means afford medical care in this country, where medical costs skyrocket every year?
        Did you ever notice, Jeffrey, that while we argue about whether we could learn from other countries, those other countries have no interest in our healthcare system? The answer is obvious: who would want a system in which we spend more than anybody else and get the least positive results and the most uninsured citizens?

        • Arlen Grossman, let me pose a few questions for you: 1: If healthcare is a right, why should someone get medical care and not be required to pay for it? 2: Since saying that something is not a right from the government is not the same as saying that it is not a right at all, why do those Leftist idiots make the automatic leap of saying that if something is not a right from the government, that it is not a right period? 3: Since these people who go to medical school and have bills that they need money to pay the bills with, why should healthcare be free? Government is telling us what kind of healthcare we can have. We should have the free market and competition to help determine that.

          • Somehow it works in every other developed country. Not perfectly, of course, but more people are covered and don’t go bankrupt over medical bills. Medicare for all would save a lot of money that now goes to insurance companies (why do we need insurance companies for healthcare anyway?). By the way, people with enough money can always buy better medical care if they choose.

          • Arlen Grossman, free healthcare is an oxymoron. Unless you have a business model where you buy one item and get one item free, free stuff otherwise is not truly free.

    • Arlen Grossman, healthcare is not a right. It is a good and service.

    • Arlen Grossman, the “right” to healthcare is absurd. All Leftists want is free shit that they want other people to pay for.

      • Most people want government, Jeffrey. The just don’t like paying for it. It’s human nature.

        • Arlen Grossman, so there is no misunderstanding, I am not an anarchist. Quite the opposite, actually. What I would be for is a government that is strictly confined to limitations spelled out under the U.S. Constitution.

          • Sounds like you are a strict constructionist, which is not something I agree with. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, and conditions have changed radically since then. The right to bear arms is a perfect example. Our founders could not have envisioned the kind of weapons we have now. If they could know, I believe they would have written exceptions into the Second Amendment.

          • Arlen Grossman, if our Founding Fathers knew of what was going on, from the Progressive era to the present, I can imagine that they would loudly speak out against all of it. Before the 16th Amendment (which was never properly ratified) was enacted, either no tax on income was present or it was temporary.

  119. The problem is the the Leftist political types want goods and services that they don’t want to pay for themselves. Healthcare is not a right. It is a commodity. People who say that healthcare is not a right are saying that government does not have the right to tell you what kind of healthcare you can have.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s