I understand what you mean, but this "right"-argument wasn't really my point. Even ACists can believe everybody has "right" to health care, and still not support taking other people's money to accomplish this (true, don't you think?). So it's a somewhat misleading term. But there is people who believe everyone should be supported by health care programs, regardless of income, however.
The fact that I'm one of those, wasn't really the point, although I welcome questions about why I believe that.

In these few posts, however, I have tried not to judge either side, and just point out something I believe is a fact: That UHC is the only way to make sure health care is covered for all people in a society. Someone pointed out that is not true, but remember -- everyone is covered by definition, since it would be illegal to NOT give health care to anyone. If someone breaks the law that's something that is not relevant for the system's function itsself, which is to give everybody health care.

Note (again) to everyone esle: I am not arguing for how/why UHC is a better sollution than everything else here. I am just holding on this my above claim

So after 400 posts your whole argument boils down to a tautology. Hurrah!

You are correct, I didn't want to argue about which system works best, and I didn't. Read the post again. I made an example about how there are people in the US who can't afford health care -- someone suggested charity would cover all of those, but it haven't. I was argumenting for why UHC is the only way to cover all people. I never assumed public health care will "work", no matter what you put in this. It is a fact that all people are covered by such system, however. It is the idea of the system; To cover everyone, despite who pays or even wants to pay. I never argued which system works best, expect from this (if you assume that the fact that all are covered is indeed "better", which I never said)

I guess we figured you wanted to say more than 2+2 = 4 but I guess not. Let me know the next time you post a thread declaring the thing you are defining as true is true and I'll be sure to drop by. Of course it wouldn't be that you came in spouting "moralist" nonsense, got called on it were unable to back up your claims and decided to fog the hell out of us instead of putting forward a legitimate argument or dropping your position, would it?

Just because it is illegal to deny coverage to someone doesnt mean that everyone is covered. That is not what any proposed or actual universal health care plan provides. So, if you get to talk about some fantasyland hypothetical UHC where everyone is covered just because the law says so, then why cant I talk about a fantasyland hypothetical where everyone is covered because those who believe so strongly in helping that they'd use force on other people actually vote with their pocketbooks? In any UHC country in the world, the guy stranded on the top of a mountain does not get health care, because no one is willing to provide it to him. This is a big problem! Luckily, MOST people can find someone willing to provide them with healthcare. Which single-handedly disposes of both your absolutes, your "right to healthcare" and your "everyone gets served." Neither of those are true, or else there would have to be hospitals or doctors on every mountainside or beepers for every person.

You cant say NOW that you dont care about this rights thing, because its fundamental to your argument and you've been using it as a rhetorical tool throughout the thread. It is a HORRIBLE idea to have a right to healthcare, but luckily no one ACTUALLY believes in it. But its frustrating when people keep SAYING that they believe in it in order to win over crowds because ZOMG THEY IS TRAMPLIN MY RIGHTS!!

Of course you don't think i have backed up my claims. After my first post, i got into a discussion with pvn and a few others about some of the claims/opinions i had, first of all that UHC is the only way to give health care for all. I have stood by that claim all the time since, and tried to explain why i think that, over and over. the fact that you don't agree does not mean i have "decided to fog the hell out of us". I have tried to be very clear, yet a lot of people like putting words in my mouth that I never said -- which makes it alot more difficult. And imo, nobody has provided a valid argument as to why my statement was wrong. if they did, I'd drop it.

anyway, i'm out of here for now, have fun

look, i have explained this over and over. i already admitted there will be cases where it will be impossible to acutally give health care to all, for example with this guy on the mountain. or, another example i just came up with, if all people suddenly got sick. or if all those nurses and doctors just DIED.

but do you really not see the difference between a system that says "i intend to give health care to all" and another that says "i intend to give health care to those who pay for it"? with UHC, people are not denied health care when they cannot pay for it. All people are supposed to get help, and they do, as long as it's possible (not on this mountain of yours) and noone denies anyone care (which they're not allowed to).

I still don't think that is comparable to charity at all, but that's just my opinion. ok going to bed now, i'll see you guys later

Define healthcare. It's not a fixed quantity. Bill Gates buys 300,000,000 band-aids and passes them out to every American, along with a ziploc bag (put your own ice in it, cheapskate) and some neosporin. Done!

BlueShield is trying to deny my 87-year old mother coverage. BS sends out surveys to all their older members. If one checks the wrong box, it would give BS an excuse to not pay.

affordable health care
There's a oxymoron.

That's a favorite buzzword of politicians. They
are just out of touch. For Americans in the bottom
third of the wealth paramid there is no such thing
as affordable health care unless someone else pays.

My health plan.

No health insurance required by individuals or employers.

Free checkups and vaccinations.

Most people will pass on the free checkups.
The free checkups will be mass assembly line types.
Hospitals will perform thousands of checkups each day.
The type of checkups soldiers get when leaving the
army. Most Americans will choose to have checkups
with their own doctors.

Funded by 1/2 of 1% tax on salary. No cap. Paid by
the employer, not the employee. That means CEOs,
athletes, entertainers, and other well payed persons
will be subsidizing this system.

The government will have no direct involvement in
most areas of healthcare. Government will watch
over the industry to assure fairness. Fair means all
patients are charged the same amount for the same
services and procedures. Each institution may set
their own pricing model. Just charge everyone from
the same pricing menu. Insurance companies will not
be allowed to negotiate prices.

Organ transplants.

There should be three main queues. The coach queue
will include most of the general population. The
first class queue will be the wealthy. They get to
skip to the head of the line. But there is a price.
They must pay from three to five times the cost of
the operation. Skip the line and subsidize the
system. Pay in advance. There's also a relative's
queue. This queue pays full price.