Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - What's Thai for "killing the goose that laid the golden eggs"?

pan6467 · 07-13-2004, 05:14 AM

I happen to love this argument because it eventually leads to socialized medicine and that argument, like this can be won very easily.

Which is more important: the cost in human lives or the financial cost?

Human lives = pretty much all of Africa at the rate it is going and a nice chunk of the rest of the world. Plus what and how we treat AIDS will set precedent over how we treat the next big epidemic.

Everyone gets treated equally and cures will come. Set prices on meds and healthcare. Financially, money to be made but not as much, which if money truly is the reward for these people they will find new ventures to make as high a profit. But people will be healthier and lead more productive lives. Helping economies by buying more and being able to work harder.

Financial = Yes the drug companies, health care companies, make millions even billions on disease. they are going to get paid as much as they want and as often, because unfortunately we need them.

But if you choose financial the bad thing is the poor still get sick, even moreso because they don't have the money for preventive medicines or say an anti-biotic to help keep that bronchitis from turning into pneumonia.

So then you have the option: let the poor be sick and die needlessly because we don't want them to afford medications, OR pay higher taxes so that the government can pay for the medicines needed (which we do now, but the poor have to be really deathly ill, pregnant or used as guinea pigs before we help them).

Healthcare already costs us billions in taxes (and in insurance) because of lost time for workers, as shown, government help of the poor who had to let something minor turn into something serious and expensive.

Only 2 ways I know to look at any argument on healthcare. And the financial never wins except in real life where greed suppresses any compassion and wanting to help for profit.

It's easy to say "no socialized medicine." "No drugs to help 3rd world AIDS victims." because those saying it haven't been affected, haven't had a loved one lose everything and then be treated as filth because they lost their insurance (because they got sick and couldn't work anymore) as they die from AIDS related pneumonia or an infection from a wound that never healed properly. Then after these poor people die the government goes after anything they do own to pay for the medical bills, the government paid for.

The Financiers say, "well let family help you" but that is money out of their pocket, plus then the government won't cover anything, because you are recieving financial aid elsewhere.

07-13-2004, 05:14 AM	#23 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I happen to love this argument because it eventually leads to socialized medicine and that argument, like this can be won very easily. Which is more important: the cost in human lives or the financial cost? Human lives = pretty much all of Africa at the rate it is going and a nice chunk of the rest of the world. Plus what and how we treat AIDS will set precedent over how we treat the next big epidemic. Everyone gets treated equally and cures will come. Set prices on meds and healthcare. Financially, money to be made but not as much, which if money truly is the reward for these people they will find new ventures to make as high a profit. But people will be healthier and lead more productive lives. Helping economies by buying more and being able to work harder. Financial = Yes the drug companies, health care companies, make millions even billions on disease. they are going to get paid as much as they want and as often, because unfortunately we need them. But if you choose financial the bad thing is the poor still get sick, even moreso because they don't have the money for preventive medicines or say an anti-biotic to help keep that bronchitis from turning into pneumonia. So then you have the option: let the poor be sick and die needlessly because we don't want them to afford medications, OR pay higher taxes so that the government can pay for the medicines needed (which we do now, but the poor have to be really deathly ill, pregnant or used as guinea pigs before we help them). Healthcare already costs us billions in taxes (and in insurance) because of lost time for workers, as shown, government help of the poor who had to let something minor turn into something serious and expensive. Only 2 ways I know to look at any argument on healthcare. And the financial never wins except in real life where greed suppresses any compassion and wanting to help for profit. It's easy to say "no socialized medicine." "No drugs to help 3rd world AIDS victims." because those saying it haven't been affected, haven't had a loved one lose everything and then be treated as filth because they lost their insurance (because they got sick and couldn't work anymore) as they die from AIDS related pneumonia or an infection from a wound that never healed properly. Then after these poor people die the government goes after anything they do own to pay for the medical bills, the government paid for. The Financiers say, "well let family help you" but that is money out of their pocket, plus then the government won't cover anything, because you are recieving financial aid elsewhere. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 07-13-2004 at 05:26 AM..