Cynthetiq

And I'm of the opinion that I don't wish to pick up the tab for them.

I've stated plain as day that there are social programs that are currently providing for those that don't have healthcare coverage that have little to no means. I'm not interested in more. I'm happy to put my hand in my own pocket and donate to NGOs that do provide social services as a CHOICE I make. Not one that is forced upon me and someone puts their hands into my pockets and takes out money as they see fit.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

So what you're saying is that because SOME (an unknown number) of these people *might* be lazy or don't apply themselves, ALL of them don't deserve our help.

BTW, sympathy isn't necessarily a thoughtful reaction. I can have sympathy for people I don't want to have sympathy for (ex: suicide bombers). I do think it's amazing that you seem to want to punish these people, though. As if you're god, and because they don't live up to your standards, they don't deserve a basic necessity of life (and let's not pretend that medical care isn't a basic necessity).
There you go with those assumptions again. Those that legitimately need some sort of healthcare do not necessarily get it. If you've seen sicko, you've seen people doing everything they can, but who are met with insurmountable walls. Had I not been lucky enough to get my grants and scholarships for college, it would be reasonable to assume that I would have had to work even hard than I did (two jobs) to pay for my tuition. That may have made my school impossible to pay for, I would have had to drop out and I would have only had my high school diploma to get me a job. I would have had to go to San Jose State or maybe even a community college, gotten a less business friendly AA. and BA and I would be making a fraction of what I'm making now. Imagine trying to pay $515 a month for Kaiser when you're making $12 an hour and paying for tuition. I may have had to choose between going to school and having medical coverage, and there would have been jack I could do about it. What would you have said to that young man doing everything he could to go to school so he could be a responsible contributing member of society, and who couldn't afford medical insurance?

Really, there would be nothing to say except "I'm sorry." Well, I'm not satisfied with just saying "I'm sorry". I'm doing something about it.

hunnychile

At least you HAVE a copay. There are so many folks out there with no health care at all. They just have to either suffer in silense or decide between foot, rent or health care.

It just isn't right in this day & age in the USA.

__________________
"I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

Cynthetiq

And more power to you. I'm saying NO THANK YOU.

I don't wish to contribute to it. We've had this same go round in the Sicko thread. I'm not interested in participating.

You can assert fallacies towards my arguments, when the same fallacies exist in yours. I'm stating simply I am of the opinion with no facts but anecdotal evidence and bias from life that I do not wish to participate nor contribute into such a system.

You go ahead, you change it. I'm not interested in playing alongside with you.

I don't have a college degree. I have a highschool diploma. I dropped out of college because I needed to move out of the house and wanted to live on my own outside of my parents rules. I didn't qualify for scholarships because my parents made just over the limit. I didn't qualify on my own except for student loans. What's your point? Again mine is choices. I wish to have a choice. I choose to not fund someone else unless I have a choice. Plain and simple. Call me selfish and I say great I am selfish to those that don't live in my village or my community.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Cynth, do you believe medical care is a necessity, along the lines of police or fire protection?

Cynthetiq

No.

I believe some basic health care is a necessity: annual checkups, vaccinations, emergency services access (EMT/EMS which is what I equate to police and fire protection) People currently have access to such things via many many different social programs currently in effect.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

So if you're shot in the face and the surgery to save your life is $35,000 in the ER....? Too bad?

seretogis

I'm all for paying for such things with user fees. If someone is a recluse who never leaves their home, they will never put gas in their car, never pay gas tax, and therefore never pay for new roads to be built.

As for police / fire protection, it easily could be handled like any other public utility -- if I don't want or need running water, I don't pay my water bill. If I don't want or need electricity, I don't pay my electric bill. Police and fire protection likely would remain socialized for the most part, but on a much smaller scale. Seattle PD would be paid for with taxes from Seattle residents -- as it should be. San Franciscans should not and would not pay for the Seatlte PD.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

dksuddeth

Will, i've been reading your posts on this thread and they all convey the same theme....reliance and dependence upon government agencies and their people. This is completely opposite of what this country was supposed to be.

You ask about relying on police and fire forces. I say no. two reasons why.
1) I can protect myself and my family, provided i'm not being restricted and regulated out of the ability to do so by my supposedly 'out for my best interests' government.
2) No court has held these government agencies responsible or liable for failure to do said objective, so why on earth should I be forced to rely on them for protection and services?

public roadways, etc.) this is what every single vehicle property tax, vehicle registration, inspection stickers, etc. were supposed to provide. It doesn't, as is evident by the numerous proposals that come up every legislative year to afford government to increase revenue to provide these services. What is happening to continually keep the government from coming up short on providing said services adequately?

To also coin an argument that many government dependent people like to use, where is the right to medical care in the constitution? Not that this should matter, but I find it a convenient outlet for alot of people who can't logically explain the reasoning behind their policies other than this is what they 'think' it should be like. More likely, it's an issue of this person or that person determining that they can't handle their responsibilities on their own and feel that someone, anyone, everyone should bail them out of the problems they have caused themselves. I'm really sickened by the large group of people who are twisting the plain text of the constitution to redefine what it says and what it means to conform to their ideals of what kind of country they want to live in.

The many groups who are pushing to get unconstitutional programs like socialized medicine or universal healthcare are the same groups of people who existed back in the times of slavery and before. They are people who wish to subjugate an entire class of people in to being dependent upon a government body.....a government body that has been usurped by large corporate entities whose sole desire is to accumulate wealth by stepping on the backs of those below them. This is exactly what hillary clintons universal healthcare will do for the health insurance company, and I stress the word company. If anyone with intellectual honesty can see, why would the health insurance companies contribute billions to her campaigns, unless they had something to gain. Please don't think it would be out of the goodness of their hearts to keep a healthy america. If you do, then you might be the one that had gone to community college with an inept economics professer (that generalization was for you will).

The bottom line is that universal healthcare will ruin healthcare for most of the population. It will be handled like social security. When the government realizes that they can't afford it, they will cut benefits. They will continue to cut the minimum amount of benefits in order to NOT piss off the populace and to keep the health insurance industry profitable.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Rekna

Cynthetiq I find your logic that you don't want to pay for someone else a bit hypocritical. Do you realize many of the things you have today are paid for by people other than yourself? For example, fire, police, military, roads, bridges, utility lines, ect. There are people who make a lot more money in this world that pay a whole lot more in taxes that you do and I bet many of them aren't happy about it. Are you thankful that they provide for you? Are you only willing to receive from others but not give? If you really don't want people to pay for other people we better change over to a flat tax that is much higher than you are paying now that way everyone pays equally.

And they don't (unless a San Franciscan is unlucky enough to get a speeding ticket in Seatle).

Police funding is local not federal.

Infinite_Loser

This thread is further proof that people generally don't care about their fellow man (Or woman). It seems to me that the people who oppose this idea or any others like it do so under the basis that they don't feel that they should have to pay for others. Therefore, I'm assuming you also don't pay taxes.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Cynthetiq

again, that is ER. And that person will be paying for that for some time $35,000 is no chump change.

if that person is me, I have insurance at this point in time, I'm covered by a $50 copay for utilizing the ER facilities.

and I disagree that this is further that people don't care about their fellow man. I'm stating that I don't care about someone else who doesn't care about themselves. I'm not willing to burden myself by someone who isn't willing to or cannot. I have not said those that aren't able, I've stated that I don't want to cover those that are taking advantage of public services that would are otherwise able bodied people that can contribute.

No this turns into people who have stuff that don't want to give it up to those that don't have.

I'm not interested in spending my extra money or compromise my living standard so that someone in Tennessee can have health care. I don't live in Tennessee. Just like I don't want to be forced to contribute a percentage of my income to pay for starving people in Africa. I'm happy to contribute to helping out my fellow New Yorkers, and preferably the NY people that live in my neighborhood.

I'm happy for it to be a choice, not forced.

Quite the contrary. The amount of taxes I pay is quite obscene and absurd. I'm not happy to pay it but I willingly pay what I must after all deductions and other exploits I can utilize to save as much money in my pocket so that then I can choose what to do with that money.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

this is quite the misnomer. I pay taxes, federal, state, and local. would I like to pay less? absolutely. Would I like to see others pay less? absolutely. If we reduced funding to the bare minimum absolute necessaries, you'd see alot happier people. Instead what we see are a large group of people who feel cheated because they don't have the amount of wealth that a few select do, therefore they feel that they can impose their will upon those that made more money. This is how politicians stay in power, blame the evil corporate empires, promise to make them pay their 'fair' share to take care of you, while underhandedly accepting money from, and creating programs for, those same companies while portraying it to you as a 'benefit' that will make your life easier.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

Did they? Did they leave me huge deficits to pay for the roads and infrastructure?

No they didn't. Roads are constantly rebuilt and refreshed via current taxes. Gasoline tax 9/10 at the end is federal taxes, the rest of the embedded taxes pay for other things. My license tags are revenue that goes to paying for the roads, bridges.

For the utlity lines:
Also those things are raised initial fund via municipal bonds people then INVEST in their local city and infrastructure and in return get a profit in the future. They aren't doing it because they want their grand kids to have better highways and byways.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Is this going to be one of those things where you tell everyone what you think the founding fathers were thinking?

The founding fathers weren't gods, and if they screwed up, it's up to us to fix it.
So what are you doing to end mob violence in the great lakes areas? And what are you doing to prevent guns from getting into the hands of violent criminals? How many red light violators have you pulled over in the past month? Do you show up on command to the scenes of robberies, follow clues and collect evidence, make an arrest, and turn over the perp to the judicial system?

You, dk, are not a reasonable replacement for a real police force. Stop pretending you are. Seriously.
So you're saying the judicial system has never prosecuted a federal or state agency?
Yes, that's what taxes provide. Socialized roadways. What is happening? They tax us. They do their job, and we pay for it in taxes. That's how government works.
The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence. You know, the paper that explained why we wanted to start our own country?
Oh my god. Unconstitutional? Where do you get the idea this is unconstitutional?!
Healthcare already is ruined, and it's been proven in every other western country that universal health care works. Even governments much more poor than our own can easily afford it.

filtherton

Here's what this motherfucker thinks.

I think that it is worthwhile to make healthcare cheap and accessible, not because healthcare is a right, but because it is better than the alternative. I think that society is better off, both financially and otherwise, when it isn't in someone's financial best interest to wait until a condition requires emergency care to do something about it, even if that person isn't presently living up their potential as a cog in the market.

Someone who is sick and works a health-benefits-less job will generally be more of a drain on the resources of the people around them than someone who is healthy and works a health-benefits-less job. You don't exist in a vacuum. Even if you are completely incapable of sympathising with someone who doesn't get benefits through their job (not that it is even realistic to expect everyone to actually be able to get benefits through their job), you should be able to recognize this and favor cheap access to healthcare out of purely selfish reasons. A rising tide raises all ships, or some shit. Healthy people are better consumers and more productive workers.

People shouldn't have to worry about losing their house because they get sick, but beyond that, the fact that people do lose their homes because they get sick is often bad for everyone else, too. I think that we're all better off if healthcare is easier and cheaper to get and i don't mind spending some of my money towards this end, and i don't mind spending some of your money too. You couldn't have earned that if not for the fact that you exist in an interdependent economy that requires a certain amount of living and nonliving infrastructure. If you can't fathom the notion that you would not have been able to make that money if you had only ever taken what you earned than you don't deserve it(yes, even you, mr. "i walked uphill in twelve feet of snow both ways till my toes froze off while you were eating cheetos and watching the price is right". I don't care how much harder you worked, you've still benefitted immensely from taking more than you earned.

I recognize the fact that the government often fucks things up, but in this particular instance, the market approach seems to have fucked things up all on its own quite nicely. Looking towards britain, canada, et al, it seems like they've found a way that most of their citizens are satisfied with.

Also, if folks hate having to rely on the government so much, perhaps they might benefit from a life where they can truly be free of government meddling; somalia perhaps? I hear it's a libertarian dream come true.

Mojo_PeiPei

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in the declaration of independence; the only thing is, it is an affirmed right of man, the government has no bearing on the equation. It simple states the government has no claim or power over your life, your liberty, or the (reasonable) pursuit of your happiness.

The only bearing government would have in the question was if it were restrictive of your pursuit to life; the lack of federal subsidized universal health care is not a restriction on your life or liberty.

And last but certainly not least, as has been pointed out to me several times ini arguments over state/religion, the DoI is not the law of the land, the constitution is.

The constitution is a framework for our government, there is only one law in the constitution and it pertains to treason. The Bill of Rights and the following amendments are restrictions on government, it is not a bill that codifies law, it restricts the power of the government and affirms the natural inalienable rights of the people.

In short, it would not be unconstitutional per say as far as I can tell as the congress has the right to levy taxes, and it would be an issue of amendment and voting as laid out by the constitution. But to say it is an affirmed right is just false.

Luckily for us the FF's in their wisdom left the door open for change, it just sucks now-a-days that people seem to think the government has the responsibility/right to do certain things, when there is no mention of it in the constitution; it complete circumvents the system and takes the power out of the hands of the people.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

JustJess

QFT. The overall country would benefit from not having 3rd world country conditions for some of its citizens.
filtherton, I think we're not having the same conversation they all are. This isn't about the constitution. This isn't about "why should I pay for that person". This is about reducing bullshit strains on the economy and workforce, about having decent living conditions for every single citizen, not just those who threw away their opportunities so they could make other choices and look down on those who don't even have those choices to make.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

mixedmedia

As always it is perceived as an 'us vs. them' crisis when it is really a 'you and me' sort of one.

I think filtherton speaks my mind very eloquently and with the proper placement of curse words even.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

dksuddeth

Normally, nobody should HAVE to tell you what the founders were thinking because it's all there in black and white.

and you think that you are smarter than they were? That YOU have the answer to all of the countrys problems where they had no clue?

Seriously, I never said such a thing so I have no clue why you would try to put those words in my mouth. Police on the streets to regulate traffic and INVESTIGATE crimes, fine. I don't NEED cops to protect me when i'm fully capable of protecting myself. If people would start being responsible for their own protection and safety instead of trying to pass it off on the government, there would be alot less spending and budget problems in localities. There would also be alot less crime, at least violent crime.

As I brought up in another thread, that unless the situation is excessively egregious, no they don't. Look up Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The police are NOT responsible nor liable for your personal individual protection. They will not be prosecuted for failing to protect you from crime.

Providing for the general welfare is not socialism. It's not socialized roadways, it's public roadways for the express purpose of regulating commerce. Not to make YOUR travel easier.

how is the right to life the same as a supposed right to medical care? Implying a right to medical care intimates that you should be able to go to a doctor, get cured, and not have to pay for it at all. Thats what a right is.

It's called knowing the constitution as a legal document, not as a so called 'living document'.

It has NOT been proven that socialized medicine works in every other western country when people have to wait excessive periods of time for care on certain issues.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

filtherton

Thanks, i'm glad i'm not the only person who thinks this way.

btw, happy birthday, mm.

dc_dux

For those who dont want to pay for the uninsured, I would suggest you already are.

If you have insurance through your job, your employer probably has seen an average premium increase of 10%/year for the last 5-6 years. In many cases, a portion of that increased is passed on to you, the employee. At the very least, your employer has less funds in the pool for salary increases.

Now consider that hospitals are facing costs of more than $20 billion/year to provide services (emergency and otherwise) to the uninsured. How do you think they recover some of these costs? Or why do you think your employers premiums have risen so much in recent years? In part, by hospitals raising their fees on the insured.

Universal care is both good social policy and fiscal policy.....and does not mean socialized medicine.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

I know more about the 21st century then them. I'm more familiar with our current problems, and I'm more capable of coming up with solutions to these modern problems because I didn't die 200 years ago.
Reread your post:
You do in fact rely on the services that the police (and for that matter firefighters) provide. To suggest otherwise is rather insulting to police and firefighters.
Those two things are linked, dk. The police officer pulls over the drunk drivers so he doesn't run you or your family over. To put it in language I think you may appreciate: they protect you and your family so you don't have to. You can act as a contingency all you want, but doesn't knowing they are there make you safer? I'm sure the answer is yes.
Either the people pay the taxes to the government who is, based on what I see with police and firefighters, not trying to make a profit to fill, a CEO's 7 figure salary, or you pay a corporation who's goal is profit. Think about that. Imagine having to pay $300/mo for private services (for those who can't have guns or who aren't willing to kill).

I'm wondering something, how many fires can guns put out? We're concentrating on police, which creates an interesting take because you're a second amendment type, but do you have the knowhow to fight a 4 alarm fire? Do you have the tools and training necessary to protect you and your family from a fire?
You're seeing a difference where there is none. Public roadways -> public healthcare. Same basic idea: we all pay into it a little so we all can use it.
It's called something? Okey dokey. The living part is the amendments (you know, like the second amendment?). The document can be changed and updated as needed, thus "living".
They don't. Go to the UK. But don't bring a gun, they don't allow those there.

ubertuber

That's a good point.

I'd also like to frame the emergency services thing in a different way... See, we already have universal healthcare - it's just the most inefficient and shitty system devisable, and it harms the health of our nation while it drives the cost of care up for everyone.

Cynthetiq - you and I went around about this in the Sicko thread, and I don't think much has changed about either viewpoint. However, I do want to point out that it's naive at best to think that every uninsured guy who comes in the door with a severed finger pays his bill at all, let alone in cash. The uninsured people who are transported to the hospital by medivac and require emergency surgery to even survive the night don't all pay their $100,000 bills. The diabetic who doesn't take care of their condition (because they can't afford preventative checkups and insulin) and requires the amputation of an ulcerous and gangrenous foot to avoid death from sepsis may not pay their $60,000 bill. So who does? You do, in the form of higher hospital service charges and increased insurance rates. There's no real alternative to this. So I move that we accept the fact that by opening the door to emergency services we've already created a national healthcare system which is inefficient and shitty. The question is whether we'll improve it or stand our ground on ideological concerns which are moot.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

cj2112

I think the biggest difference I see is that some people think this should be a right, and some people don't. I am one that doesn't.

I am of the opinion that if you want health care, pay for it, or put yourself in the position to have insurance, but I sure as fuck don't want to pay for your health insurance, and based on how efficiently the government manages itself now, I certainly don't want them managing my health insurance.

I'm a HS dropout, I'm a recovered (not recovering, recoverED) drug addict, spent a couple of years homeless (living in a park homeless, not couch surfing), have lost everything but the clothes on my back...twice, became a single parent w/ a 21 month old, and a 4 y.o.

I now have health insurance for myself and my children, I have a decent place to live. Why? Because I have busted my ass to put myself in a better situation. I wasn't GIVEN any opportunities. I fought tooth and nail to create them. Guess what? The system doesn't owe me free healthcare, free food, free housing, or anything else. If I want it, I had best get off my dead ass and do what it takes to get it, don't expect me to provide it for you when you don't.

dksuddeth

so you are suggesting that because it is the 21st century and not the 18th, that the limitations on federal power listed in the constitution should no longer apply? Because if you do, then the following statement by you makes zero sense with the actions that you are trying to accomplish.

The amendments do not 'live', nor do they 'breathe', like most liberals tend to intimate. To further this part of the argument would require digging up an old thread or starting a new one though.

I don't 'rely' on them, although I am not saying they don't provide a benefit, however, I do not NEED them to protect myself nor my home. Having been trained in both security matters and how to fight jet fuel fires (thank you USMC) I'm pretty secure in my knowledge of how to fight most fires. Equipment to do so is the deciding factor. Pity the city won't let me hook up to the fire hydrant.

The answer is no, simply because you are looking at things backwards. They provide the contingency because THEY are not around me 24/7/365. Because I am the most immediate person surrounding myself, I alone am completely responsible for mine and my families protection. The police are my backup. To put it in terms YOU might understand, If a small group of thugs managed to break through your homes defenses, who is going to protect you and yours for the few minutes it takes a policeman to arrive?

do you carry a cop with you wherever you go? Does ted kennedy have a bodyguard everywhere he goes?

apples and oranges in fact. With public roadways, I can use them as often or wherever I want. With public healthcare, there WILL be limitations and things not covered.

I'm assuming that you consider the UK a 'western' nation? This is just one example of why socialized medicine doesn't work.
Liberal MP goes to US for cancer operation

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Of course there is an alternative... the alternative that those who are against universal healthcare suggest: Let everyone fend for themselves.

Someone can't pay for their treatment? Let them die.

Can't afford to look after yourself if you have diabetes? It's a good way to thin the heard.


This is essentially what is being said by many here on this thread.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

cj2112

Do you seriously think that the Federal government is competent enough to manage this???

dksuddeth

On top of that, let's seriously look at who is pushing this, why they are pushing it, and who stands to seriously benefit from this? The spin about healthcare for all is exactly that, spin. The health insurance companies would not be pushing for this with billions in campaign donations if they didn't stand to reap a windfall of profit.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

My point is that the "alternative" is no longer a choice. We've already made that choice, and we opted for universal healthcare. All of those people get emergency or stabilizing treatment. They're all billed, but they don't all pay - so in essence it's a payment optional system.

That's one way to look at this situation. Another is to ask whether the intended beneficiary (the citizen/patient) benefits. Still another way to look at it is that the healthcare companies may support one version of universal healthcare, but we the people may implement a different version of it.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dc_dux

One of the fallacies espoused by those who seem to be against universal coverage is that it would result in a government run program.

Much of the focus of Hilary Clinton's plan is on personal tax credits to working families and tax incentives to small businesses to make employer-sponsored plans more affordable for more people. More than half of the 46 million without health insurance are working and this option could provide affordable insurance.

And for those who dont like their current plan for whatever reason, the other component of her plan is to provide the option is to join the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, which includes numerous private health insurance options. There is no new federal bureaucracy.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

filtherton

I imagine you never once during your homeless drug addict phase ever got anything you didn't earn, which is good, because if you had ever once gotten anything you didn't earn you would have never actually gotten off your ass and got your shit together. Because that's how things work.

I'm glad you have your shit together.

What about the idea that, regardless of the perceived fairness of it, we are all better off if everyone has access to affordable health care?

reconmike

Charlton, what about the smokers with lung cancer? If they can not pay for their treatment they should die.

How about alcohol drinkers? If they get cirrhosis of the liver they should die if they cant pay.

What about the people who love the extreme sports? Should I or the others have to fund their healthcare because they love the adrenaline rush and break their neck?

These are a few of the instances where people control their life and health, I am sure there are hundreds more, and if they dont take personal responsibility for their well being why should I have to fund it?

Why is it that the have nots want to take what they do not have from the ones that have?

Why does the Democratic party the champion of the have nots, the ones who barely pay any taxes keep digging their hands into my pocket?

Votes

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Willravel

Your assertion that we should look to people like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson for an answer to the current healthcare crisis is asking a lot, and presumes an almost supernatural role to each man. It has less to do with federal power in general, and has more to do with the fact that times change, and thus solutions change. It is clear that the current health care system is not the cure for what ails us on a large scale. While it may be more than adequate for the rich, for many people it suffers from many problems. We can't just say "No more big government!" to every problem we see. Nothing is that simple (something Ron Paul will probably realize on his death bed). In order to solve real world, complex problems, we need to develop real world, complex solutions.

I love the Constitution. I think it's one of the most amazing things humanity has ever produced. It's not an oracle, though. There are some problems to which the Constitution has no answer.
If the Constitution were unchanging, you would not have the right to bear arms as a part of a well regulated militia. You have your second Amendment, as proof that the Constitution is a changing document. There is no argument against this fact.
Assuming you really were trained in fire fighting, you know well that different fires behave in different ways. You know that a jet fuel fire burns completely different from a brush fire, which burns completely different than a house fire.

The point is that without police protection, you wouldn't be able to defend your family. Once you've run out of ammo, in a world without police, and shipments of ammunitions are intercepted and production stops, you'll be down to hand to hand combat and only those who get ammunition illegally will have guns. So, how about we leave the inevitable "I can protect my family from anything" testosterone contest just this once. Please.
No one. We go into the basement in an emergency involving someone trying to get into the house. Then the police arrive and deal with it. See? I don't have to kill anyone, and the police do their job. Fortunately, the odds of my house being broken into are so low that it's not really a concern.
There would be a thankless job. Watching the black sheep of the family drink himself stupid and squander his family name.

Time to get away from the "I can protect my family" talk, as it's a threadjack. You would call 911 if someone came around your house whether you shot them or not, so case closed.
You can't park on the highway with our public roads, and you can't get a nose-job with public medicine.
Why do you always do this? Post a link to a story that's an exception, then present it as the rule. You do the same thing with gun crime.

He came here because the system for the rich in the US is actually quite good. No one has argued to the contrary here.

dksuddeth

But violating or circumventing the constitution isn't one of them. You want universal healthcare supported by all of america? amend the constitution so that it states that every american has the right to medical care.

There is not one recorded moment in history where 'more government' ever made things more free for the people.

There is a prescribed process for this change, as you well know. All too often though, the far left uses the judiciary to circumvent these changes because they know they don't have enough populace support to change said constitution.


Because you always state your ideas and goals as the end all/be all solution, that socialism would solve everything or that peaceful resistance solves everything. I'm merely showing you the chinks in your armor.

Think about this for a minute, exactly what you said. If socialized medicine were that great, then there would have been zero reason for this 'wealthy' individual to trek to the US for surgery. That alone should tell you that all socialized medicine did was reduce the quality of care overall so that everyone would have some. Is that what you want for us here?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Universal healthcare doesn't violate the Constitution, and that's that. It's not a Constitutional issue at all. I was humoring you, but you need to realize that.
Meaningless.
The far left uses the judiciary? Like the far right uses the executive? What does that have to do with anything?
Weakest ad hominem ever. Want to answer my question?
Socialized medicine is better for the average person there, and it's better for the super rich here. I, alone, make over $150k a year. I still get shitty medical care. I was turned down for a surgery because it wasn't cost effective. I'm not a celebrity or super rich. I wonder why you'd want a medical system that is only adequate for ~2% of the population.

Cynthetiq

And I'm fine with that as it is. Because they don't pay already. So I'm already paying for it. From what I read and understand I will pay more not less for those that aren't able to pay for it. I'm not interested in that.

Charlataan, yes. That is in effect what I'm saying. I'm not painting any rosy pictures here. Thin out the herd. If you cannot take care of yourself, the collective should forever?

Should we just then have organic food for everyone? I mean it's better for them in the long run. Why not it's their health we are talking about if they are just eating McDonald's, KFC or BK Lounge. So we should pay for someone to have triple and quadruple bypasses because they didn't choose to eat healthier? They were too busy doing whatever else they were doing to cook or purchase healthier meals and I'm supposed to feel bad for them?

Should you and I foot the bill because someone is a chronic drug addict and isn't interested in rehabilitation?

Again, I see it as choices. You make the choice to smoke? Why the fuck shoud I pay for your poor fucked ass with a lung transplant? Shouldn't there be consequences to actions? Or let's toss that out too since we're talking about the betterment of human beings and all that kumbayayas.

As far as Diabetes is concerned onset Type II diabetes is growing exponentially. Do you think that it's something that just happened? or do you think that there are lifestyle choices such as eating right and excercising that are made that remove it from being critical?

At what point is it okay for me and you guys to tell me you are done taking money out of my pocket and my quality of life? Where does it end?

Then maybe you should spend more of your money to pay for those starving people in Africa and other third world countries. Maybe that will assuage your guilt.

Think of how many mouths that will feed. I mean in ratio it's just like how much the CEO of Kaiser's salary will cover surgeries. Don't you want to keep those others alive????

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dc_dux

Cynthetiq......I am trying to understand how personal tax credits to working families and tax incentives to small businesses to enable millions more workers to have access to affordable insurance will take money out of your pocket anymore than lowering the marginal rate on the top 2% of earners or cuts in the capital gains tax... not to mention the more than $100 billion in corporate tax breaks enacted in the last six years to industries as diverse as restaurants, nascar owners and importers of Chinese ceiling fans (just to mention a few who benefited from Bush corporate tax cuts)

And why do people insist on equating universal health care to socialized medicine?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

all a matter of 'because you said so'? guess that settles it then.

So we can safely assume that you and your pursuit of socialism is about doing away with freedom of choice?

If you consider that ad hominen, then you better thicken your skin some, and that does answer your question. Sorry you can't see it.

so instead of trying to remove the impediments of a 'class society', you intend to cement it in to being with your full support. The health insurance industry is the reason we have the screwed up health care system as it is. If you'd like to see health care be available to all and at reasonable prices, do away with the power that the health insurance industry has over the way medical issues are handled.
If you still get bad medical care and you make that much, then i'd see about changing your policy, cause damn!!!!

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

I have yet to see tax credits, rebates, abatements change what comes out of my pocket.

Mayor Bloomburg recently gave us NYC property owners $400 credits for property taxes. Whoopdefuckingdoo. After he raised property taxes he gives some of it back after a year of holding it?

When I lived in California the voters voted for better auto insurance. I believe all that media, I was going to get money back for all the insurance redlining and disproportionate charging of rates. I didn't even get a nickel back. I moved out of the state and as far as I know all my friends and family that live in CA still haven't seen dime one from that voter mandate. It was a bunch of hogwash and I'm not buying it again.

People are wronged let's make some sort of class action suit, let's get the company to pay. Yeah I have coupons from Microsoft for $150 so that I can buy another Microsoft product. I have $20 coupons from AT&T so that I can feel better that they fucked me out of monies but in order to get my "$20" I have to spend more money with them.

Maybe you don't feel fucked by Steve Jobs because he charged $599 to the first iphone people and then when the new ones come out at $399 everyone cries found and he "gives" back $100 to be used in Apple stores. He's still got your $200 dollars.

No, it's just as much how I see the government working just not as efficiently.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.