Also cute, but do you know what the prerequisites for slavery are?
The only thing about healthcare that even remotely resembles the gross exaggeration that is the comparison to slavery is definition #4 and that has absolutely nothing to do with rendering healthcare available universally. What's more, even that weak link still doesn't even remotely resemble the oppressive humanitarian crisis that is the actual institution of slavery and not the overblown term used by politicians as a scare tactic for gullible Americans. It is, quite frankly, a ridiculous alarmist buzzword and nothing more. It's meaningless. It's like calling everyone Hitler or a nazi or suggesting that the taxes are like the Holocaust. Nobody's saying you can't disagree with certain ideas, but to compare it to something completely inappropriate for the sake of shock value says to me that your reasoning alone isn't strong enough to support your ideas.
I don't recall suggesting it was one sided.
Police protection is paid for, not a right or a privilege, it is a paid for service through tax dollars and in most municipalities fire protection. Education on the other hand is a right. Has been since the beginning of the country when the founding fathers recognized you needed an educated population to run a democracy. This does not make teachers slaves, they are paid for it just like any other job and like any other job can walk away from it.
Police protection is paid for, not a right or a privilege, it is a paid for service through tax dollars and in most municipalities fire protection.
That is it paid for makes it no less a privilege.
Education on the other hand is a right.
That is a simplification. I would say one has a right to gain education, but one does not have a right to the time and effort of others to provide that education.
I have to chip in and add that just because something isn't a right doesn't mean it's not still a highly important and integral part of our functioning society.
And I would say just because something is important and perhaps even integral to our society doesn't mean the best way to get it is to have it provided by government.
... so, anyway, getting back to the original topic, I enjoyed the fact that it appears they had a panel of both healthcare professionals and healthcare administrators present at the hearing. However, I'm not really able to find more information about the panel itself and what came of it. Were the results published at all? Was there a report issued?
I agree. Rand Paul was over the top with his comparison. It's really not an appropriate comparison. But then it's not really much worse than the nonsense other politicians say to scare people into supporting or not supporting this or that. I'm not saying Paul doesn't deserve criticism for his comment, because he does, but I have a hard time mustering up shock that a politician used a ridiculous hyperbolic comparison to make a point.
Thing is, all of that kind of language needs to stop from all sides on any issue. Nothing is the Holocaust except the Holocaust. Nothing is Hitler except Hitler. It's important to call out idiotic rhetoric for what it is en masse and demand a higher level of dialogue not just for the sake of more intelligent politics, but we've cheapened the hell out of those terms to the point they only mean what we want them to mean. Not that I think it'll happen anytime soon (cynic!), but the fear-mongering is a cheap tactic and quite frankly, pretty old. We're always trying to scare one group or the other into believing X or Y agenda and it's really not healthy. The facts should speak for you and if you have to resort to terms with pre-loaded feelings, then you're not doing your point any great favors.
I agree that we don't need to dig out the pitchforks and torches for Rand Paul especially, but maybe it's in light of both him and Bachmann using historically loaded guns to try and blindly fire at any kind of outrage they can get in the same period of time that I feel especially harsh.
Interesting you should say that, given the private sector isn't doing so well on their own with the very healthcare we're speaking of and botched our banking situation too, at that. Government involvement/oversight doesn't automatically make anyone a slave nor does it turn our state of affairs into systematic denial of rights for medical professionals. It doesn't necessitate a 100% takeover, especially so as there are systems in the world that work well with a hybrid of government care as well as offering people the choice to go private. I'm more of a believer in balance. I think both the private sector and the government have their strengths and weaknesses and do not necessarily need to be mortal enemies.
I feel like I should echo Trieste's earlier sentiments, that those who have the power to legislate should probably take a spin on the private healthcare pony on the salary of the average American before crying about balance and what's fair. Their government-sponsored coverage seems to be doing them quite well.