Wall of text crits you for - 420,708 damage Red text damage over time - 74,304 damage You Are Dead lol i just had to.
LOL! That is why I said take that wall of text... did you bother to read it? LOL.. I wish healthcare had a simple answer. Though it is a nightamrish wall of text, if you bother to read it, you could learn something. I have dealt with this issue hands on, and I could tell you so much more, but there is little time to explain why things they are the way they are, and how awful they really are. while we speak there are more that are falling victim to this system, and for them every second counts.
yeah i read the whole thing and it makes me a little bewildered that people would get new cabinets just for the sake of looking different, (i'm sure a doctor would care more about the multiple pools and other stuff then cabinets) or not giving out the good medication. But i guess i'm not that surprised as greed and big corporations go hand in hand together. It seems to me that the medical corporations are the ones who fuck over people more then any other corporation AND get away with it. There must be very little if any competition between these pharmaceutical (sp?) companys. As far as the insurance story goes (the one with the little girl) it was nice to hear the clinic helped them, but its kind of frightnening that the medical insurance you pay for might not always cover you, i'm guessing you wont read that in fine print either.
It is not profitable to the pharmaceuticals to compete with each other, so the different companies usually stay with their specialties for the most part, though they do try to some extent, and their reps are very aggressive at trying to get doctors to prescribe their medications. But the larger issue here is that they shouldn;t be attempting to bribe doctors at all, their medication should speak for itself. There is no need for any of that, they can publish their research findings for doctors to read, and the results should speak for themselves. The Television ads are absurd. Patients should not be going into doctors offices demanding different medications, they should leave that up to their doctor to determine what is the best course of treatment. Many of the medications advertised have such terrible side effects that the doctors choose not to give them that because there are other medications available with less side effects.
I do think that pharmaceutical companies need to have humanitarian laws implented on them. They should be held accountable criminally for their actions. Their actions directly result in loss of human life, and should be treated as such.
As far as medical insurance goes, I would rather do away with that entire industry and just finance the doctors, clincs and hospitals in order to reduce the costs and time it takes to receive treatment. Yes you pay for something they can choose not to provide when the time comes, and often keep things tied up until a patient dies. It is disgusting.
QFT. And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me. Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack. And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Why has heathcare become regarded as a basic human right rather than a capitalistic service? How is it different than things like haircuts or oil change services? Its astonishing that people forget the basic economic concepts when it comes to healthcare. It's not a right, its an expensive service that not everyone can afford. If you can't afford a product, you don't buy it. Yet doctors and medicine don't follow that?
Now answer me this, why do liberals act like these services/products do not follow the basic rules of trade? Why should these industry items be considered "free?"
Simple. You go to McDonalds, you want a big mac. But you don't have any money, and you are hungry. McDonald's tells you to bad so sad, no Big Mac for you untill you get some cash. That's a business.
A little child, say 7 years old is hit by a car near a Hospital. The child has internal bleeding. If treated immediately, the child will live, if not treated immediately the child will die.
If the Hospital is just like McDonald's then the Hospital can say, little child you don't have health insurance, and yoru parents don't have any money. No surgery for you, go ahead and die. We're trying to run a business here.
When you think you can pass legislation to let Hospitals operate like that let me know. That's when Health Care will be a business.
A nice story. There are still ways to collect the money, with your story the person hitting the girl can pay for the treatment.
There are not always ways to collect money.
Little girl falls down and breaks some bones causing same injuries.
Who are you going to collect from?
The guy that hit her died in the car crash, with no insurance or family.
Who are you going to collect from?
It's simply a fallacy to say there will always be someone you can charge, or that it will always be someone's fault. Sometimes there will be no one to charge, and it will be no one's fault, but the treatment will still necessary.
If you were strictly a business, you'd be able to let people die that didnt' have money for treatment, but that's against the law.
When you can change that law, THEN medicine will be a business.
The guy that hit her died in the car crash, with no insurance or family. Who are you going to collect from? It's simply a fallacy to say there will always be someone you can charge, or that it will always be someone's fault. Sometimes there will be no one to charge, and it will be no one's fault, but the treatment will still necessary.
This is a good point, and this is one of the main reasons insurance companies charge so damn much.
They already know that in many cases, especially when times get worse, that there are simply times when huge bills come up and they have no one to sue to recoup those losses, so they jack up everyone's premiums from the start. That's why it costs $13,000/yr even if you NEVER use your health insurance.. for the people who can't get sued.
When the government pays, this isn't an issue and they can't tell me that billions upon billions can be spent in Iraq and on the captured "insurgents" for LIFE, while Americans have to go without. It's just a stupid argument these people keep putting up that there isn't any money for healthcare available when their are plenty of areas to cut back without causing a dent.
Taking out the high cost of insurance would also be another benefit to government healthcare. Private giants like AIG would have to lower their rates to compete with the government so if you want to pay for your own insurance, you'd actually end up paying LESS in the long run privately, not more.
Remember this issue is worthy of debate, but you gotta keep an open mind and listen to both sides of the arguments. It's very hard to weed out bs and rhetoric to find facts these days.
Remember this issue is worthy of debate, but you gotta keep an open mind and listen to both sides of the arguments. It's very hard to weed out bs and rhetoric to find facts these days.
The so called myth about hospitals and the costs of treating non payers is misleading. First. the majority of hospitals are not public hospitals and the catagories should be separated to actually geta proper precentage of the hospitals that are actually handling these people. The public hospitals are at a much higher percentage than 5% of their costs, but lumping in both private and public hospitals it softens the overall percentages. This data also leaves out the free clinics and doctors offices entirely. To gain a better perspective on this they would have to only include hospitals, clinics and doctors offices that treat everyone regardless of ability to pay. They crunch their numbers. If hospitals, clinics and doctors offices do not accept non paying patients and send them elsewhere, they should not be included in this lump sum, since it does not apply to them.
Psssh, I feel dumb now. I just did a bit more research. There is a way for complete universal healthcare in the United States without increases taxes at all. Infact it may even reduce taxes. Here is a simple break down of that plan.
a. Healthcare Reform and Regulation. Follow the IADMD plan towards healthcare coverage. Malpractice courts will be treated similiarly to Employment courts. A panel would disperse damages to victims instead of having high priced jury trials were the Lawyer gets all or most of the settlement. Pharmecuticals will have stiffer oversight and regulation placed on them. They will be forbidden from bribing and gifting Doctors.
b. If healthcare costs drop below $190/month per plan regardless of precondition and age, then switch funds from Medicare/Medicaid to Universal Healthcare. According to the IADMD following their plan would reduce premiums to $100/month. So it should be achievable. The total budget going towards Medicare/Medicaid is $600~$800 Billion that goes to paying for what Universal Healthcare would pay for.
c. Continue to monitor healthcare in order to prevent fraud.
Psssh, I feel dumb now. I just did a bit more research. There is a way for complete universal healthcare in the United States without increases taxes at all. Infact it may even reduce taxes. Here is a simple break down of that plan. a. Healthcare Reform and Regulation. Follow the IADMD plan towards healthcare coverage. Malpractice courts will be treated similiarly to Employment courts. A panel would disperse damages to victims instead of having high priced jury trials were the Lawyer gets all or most of the settlement. Pharmecuticals will have stiffer oversight and regulation placed on them. They will be forbidden from bribing and gifting Doctors. b. If healthcare costs drop below $190/month per plan regardless of precondition and age, then switch funds from Medicare/Medicaid to Universal Healthcare. According to the IADMD following their plan would reduce premiums to $100/month. So it should be achievable. The total budget going towards Medicare/Medicaid is $600~$800 Billion that goes to paying for what Universal Healthcare would pay for. c. Continue to monitor healthcare in order to prevent fraud.
The IADMD plan is a plan worth supporting. It offers real solutions, not just create more problems like the other proposed plans. I wish more people would give them more support, so that we can have true universal, complete coverage for our people.
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
Been to the VA hospital lately... Yes, the VA is where I get almost all of my healthcare (I'm a medically retired disabled veteran) and the standard of care is so incredibly far below the standard of care in civilian hospitals that it is disgusting. Let Doctors compete for services,get law suits out the doctors offices.My Doctor which i have know for yrs has stop seeing Medicaid and Medicare patients because the government red tape and they don't pay !!! My friend's wife had cancer and had to have very expensive surgery with follow-up care: Medicare and Tricare (government health insurance for military and retirees) didn't cover a large chunk of the surgery, nor would they cover the thousand dollars a month in follow-up care. The hospital and doctors ended up eating the cost - thank God, or my friend would still be paying the bills years after his wife's death. I should note here that my friend was a military veteran with full retirement benefits from the military after a 30-year career that included two tours in Korea and three in Vietnam during both wars. this is happing all over the nation not to mention the fact that hospitals along the border are being flooded with patients from Canada because they cant get services in the there government run heath care system. Certain states have a massive healthcare problem due to illegal immigrants using the hospital emergency rooms for everything from urgent care (their intended purpose) to a routine doctor visit for, say, pediatric immunizaions. plus the fact that Obama plan will only cost about 1.6 trillion dollars. Sarcasm, I hope ;P Banks under assault,Car company's are under assault,Insurance are under assault, now health care is under assault. The tipping point is almost here folks... The tipping point has long since passed. 30 states have passed or are passing legislation to affirm their Tenth Amendment right to sovereignty and to manage their own affairs independently from the Federal Government (except in those matters which are clearly the Federal Government's "territory" under the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the Federal government.) Thank GOD the state I live in, Texas, is one of them.
What it boils down to, gentlemen and ladies, is that, as someone who is more or less dependent on government healthcare, I can assure you that it is something you do NOT want to ever be forced to deal with. I once required surgery...it took the VA a year to decide that something was wrong and another year to take action. In the meantime, I was bleeding internally that entire two years while they decided "hey, something isn't right here!"
By contrast, in a medical emergency two years ago, I visited a non-government-run emergency room. In the non-government-run facility, I was triaged within 15 minutes, slapped on a backboard with a C-collar, treated for shock, and in see a physician and get x-rays within 40 minutes of arrival. In a total of two and a half hours, I had been correctly diagnosed, scheduled with physical therapy, had my prescriptions filled, and was home resting in my own bed with medication adequate to the task of relieving the pain of a severe spinal injury (the VA is loathe to give painkillers that actually work because those painkillers are frequently narcotic and that means that, by default, if you ask for something stronger than ibuprofen, you must be a drug addict - according to the VA).
In a government-run hospital (government healthcare is something with which I have an extensive 16 year history with - from my time as an active duty soldier until now, and over the years it has gotten worse, not better), I would have waited anywhere from 1 to 4 hours to be triaged, then another 1 to four hours to see a doctor. The wait in x-ray, even for "stat" films is generally a minimum of two hours. For physical therapy, I would have had to call to set up a consult, would have waited 3 to six weeks just for the consult, then would have had to wait another three to six weeks just to start physical therapy. The wait for prescriptions would have had me in the pharmacy's waiting room at the VA for anywhere from two to four hours (which is the typical wait at a VA hospital pharmacy in my experience). When I go to the doctor for a routine appointment - say, an annual checkup - it is an all-day affair...just to spend ten minutes with my doctor.
I am against federal/government healthcare...but only because of my experience with it. I wouldn't wish government healthcare on my worst enemy, let alone an unsuspecting American public who really does not know what they are asking for.
As the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for...you just might get it."
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
Of course the "moral" way fisher is giving rather than taking.
But people to put it bluntly are dicks. Simple as that. Noone gives a crap if her son would die unless it somehow affected them or if it was in their best interest to help.
Should the government interfere that much? Probably not. But then again what is the alternative? And how sure it is that it will actually save lives?
And morally Fisher, if someone is stronger and better than you he has the right to take whatever they want, that is the one moral that never changes.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
In an ideal world giving health care to everyone would work. But all the charities combined don't have enough to give health care to everyone.
And the whole "They're stealing my money argument is BS." I don't see the same people complaining about the government "stealing" their money to pay for the military.
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
In an ideal world giving health care to everyone would work. But all the charities combined don't have enough to give health care to everyone.
And the whole "They're stealing my money argument is BS." I don't see the same people complaining about the government "stealing" their money to pay for the military.
BS to you, but interesting how you can't reasonably argue the point. The military is a stated function and power of our federal government according to our Constitution. Health care is not.
Government is for the things worth shooting someone over. You cotact an agent to protect your RIGHTS, which are those things individuals are morally entitled to have BY FORCE, life liberty and property.
That is why we have a militrary, and why our government was consituted.
Governments are not instituted among men to take the incoem of one citizen, by a servic e from a second citizen and give it to a third citizen. That has nothing to do with OUR government -- the product of enlightenment rationalism -- but rather the governments founded as the product of Marxism.
I happen to disagree with that point of view, and agree with the point of view that led to our constitution.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
In an ideal world giving health care to everyone would work. But all the charities combined don't have enough to give health care to everyone.
And the whole "They're stealing my money argument is BS." I don't see the same people complaining about the government "stealing" their money to pay for the military.
BS to you, but interesting how you can't reasonably argue the point. The military is a stated function and power of our federal government according to our Constitution. Health care is not.
Government is for the things worth shooting someone over. You cotact an agent to protect your RIGHTS, which are those things individuals are morally entitled to have BY FORCE, life liberty and property.
That is why we have a militrary, and why our government was consituted.
Governments are not instituted among men to take the incoem of one citizen, by a servic e from a second citizen and give it to a third citizen. That has nothing to do with OUR government -- the product of enlightenment rationalism -- but rather the governments founded as the product of Marxism.
I happen to disagree with that point of view, and agree with the point of view that led to our constitution.
So you're against ever changing the laws of our land because the people who founded this country got it "perfect"? The Bill of Rights has more holes in it than a fishing net. It's vague, and can be used to argue multiple sides of a debate. The fact that there have been 17 additional ammendments proves this fact.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
In an ideal world giving health care to everyone would work. But all the charities combined don't have enough to give health care to everyone.
And the whole "They're stealing my money argument is BS." I don't see the same people complaining about the government "stealing" their money to pay for the military.
BS to you, but interesting how you can't reasonably argue the point. The military is a stated function and power of our federal government according to our Constitution. Health care is not.
Government is for the things worth shooting someone over. You cotact an agent to protect your RIGHTS, which are those things individuals are morally entitled to have BY FORCE, life liberty and property.
That is why we have a militrary, and why our government was consituted.
Governments are not instituted among men to take the incoem of one citizen, by a servic e from a second citizen and give it to a third citizen. That has nothing to do with OUR government -- the product of enlightenment rationalism -- but rather the governments founded as the product of Marxism.
I happen to disagree with that point of view, and agree with the point of view that led to our constitution.
So you're against ever changing the laws of our land because the people who founded this country got it "perfect"? The Bill of Rights has more holes in it than a fishing net. It's vague, and can be used to argue multiple sides of a debate. The fact that there have been 17 additional ammendments proves this fact.
No, I agree with the founding principles of our government, and the enlightenment rationalist view of government, being the protector of whart we call "negative rights." You do not, and favor a different idea of government entirely. To that end you will use the vagueness to impose your will on others -- even if it blatantly violates the entire meaning of the thing. I understand that, I merely disagree.
When you or a loved one are on the hospital bed knowing that without treatment you will die after excruciating pain and you can still say these things with a straight face then we can have a discussion. Until then I will just assume that a) Neither you or a loved one needed a major surgery/treatment that you wouldn't be able to afford. or b) You or your family are very rich hence costs are irrelevant. or c) You just post a flame bait.
QFT.
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
Right. Your problems are fixed with my tax dollar money and I'm the selfish one?
Death and illness or horrible things, but the world is what it is. If Africans have no food they starve to death. It's simple as that. Yet you think human civilization is so above what it really is that everyone pitches in money to save an occasional life?
Sorry, the world doesn't work like that. It's not the governments job to force your neighbors to pay for your problems. You can be a bleeding heart humanitarian all you want, it doesn't change the laws of scarcity with supply/demand. If there's not enough medicine.. people die. The way we humans decide who gets the rare resources (like medicine/healthcare) is through an economic system with money.
Some surgories cost as much as a house. How about you go up and survey americans and ask, "Would you demolish your house to save a little boy?" Most would say no. That's essentially what you are doing with gov. health insurence. You are taking money away from the people and redistrubuting it.
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
Of course the "moral" way fisher is giving rather than taking.
But people to put it bluntly are dicks. Simple as that. Noone gives a crap if her son would die unless it somehow affected them or if it was in their best interest to help.
Should the government interfere that much? Probably not. But then again what is the alternative? And how sure it is that it will actually save lives?
And morally Fisher, if someone is stronger and better than you he has the right to take whatever they want, that is the one moral that never changes.
If people are dicks, they do not deserve government assistance -- because they are dicks. If they are dicks they deserve nothing from anyone. Do you think GirlGeek is a dick? that is what you are saying? Are you alsos aying her SON was a dick? Are YOU a dick? I disagree with you. I think you are a pretty decent guy but you do not see the final consequences of your theories and preferred policies.
But, since you are appearing to believe that the only eternal morality is the rule of brute force...then it is IMMORAL to help people either way -- by force of by choice -- so basically YOU are saying the child should die. because he is a dick bny your definition and he on;y has the right to what HE can take through brute force -- which would be nothing, since he was a sick child.
I disagree with that assessment of reality and humanity.
Socialism would never have risen if people are dicks. Socialism shows that people DO care - care enough to force others who they feel don't care into caring. It is a wrong way to go about it but it disproves the theory that "people are dicks." It is the best within us that gets perverted into something bad under socialism.
The fact is I find that people are generous, and the freer they are, the more generous they are -- and most of human history bears me out.
Again, if people are dicks, as you say (and I disagree), they do not deserve what you want to give them through force of arms.
You silly Americans always misunderstand universal healthcare and socialism in general.
You view both as some sort of charity when you should be viewing it as insurance. Do any of you pay insurance to support your fellow man? Has anybody? You pay it to cover your own ass.
Under universal healthcare, as with proper socialist programs, everyone benefits equally.
As far as the OPs question about goods/services goes... healthcare is not something you can afford on your own, if it was you wouldn't need insurance - healthcare is something where you need to rely on the support of your fellow man and they need to rely on you. That's a fact.
The arguement is not about healthcare - it's about who can provide a better service. Private insurance companies that hire detectives to find holes in your claims or another system where all Americans are protected and nobody is rejected because they forgot to tell their insurance company about that mild illness they had 30 years ago. Private insurance companies that stand between you and the proper care that you need, or another system where you get the best treatment you can get because there is no pencil pushing dictator deciding that treatment is too expensive so the insurance company will not cover it.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
If people are dicks, they do not deserve government assistance -- because they are dicks. If they are dicks they deserve nothing from anyone. Do you think GirlGeek is a dick? that is what you are saying? Are you alsos aying her SON was a dick? Are YOU a dick? I disagree with you. I think you are a pretty decent guy but you do not see the final consequences of your theories and preferred policies.
But, since you are appearing to believe that the only eternal morality is the rule of brute force...then it is IMMORAL to help people either way -- by force of by choice -- so basically YOU are saying the child should die. because he is a dick bny your definition and he on;y has the right to what HE can take through brute force -- which would be nothing, since he was a sick child.
I disagree with that assessment of reality and humanity.
Socialism would never have risen if people are dicks. Socialism shows that people DO care - care enough to force others who they feel don't care into caring. It is a wrong way to go about it but it disproves the theory that "people are dicks." It is the best within us that gets perverted into something bad under socialism.
The fact is I find that people are generous, and the freer they are, the more generous they are -- and most of human history bears me out.
Again, if people are dicks, as you say (and I disagree), they do not deserve what you want to give them through force of arms.
By "dick" as I have explained is that unless something affect us or we have something to gain from it, we won't act on that. And when many people hold the same moral or ethical ruleset they will force it eventually to the "weaker" ones of their community. Thanks for the compliment by the way, and it's normal that one person cannot see the final consequence of a theory. Hence why I discuss it. In my context then yes, you and me and everyone are. Not "evil" persons, but first you will look into your own well being before others.
I do believe that brute force is an absolute. Not the ONLY one, but one of the sure things in reality. Permission after all is needless to one that has power to get what he wants without it.
You make a leap of logic here though. Just because someone is a dick doesn't mean he doesn't deserve help. You of all people (being christian and all) should know:)
In the case of the child? A hypothetical scenario would be that his family would amass a good number of people to perform a charity, applying to the guilt and/or decency of other people. That's also brute force, just of a different kind. Instead they used a ruleset provided by the government which is also another kind of brute force.
So although I disagree with socialism I see it through that context. Many people want socialism hence by sheer force of numbers they can force it all they want on the rest of us one way or another. I do agree that people can be generous but only in a micro level. That means only in small communities, the more expanded the community gets (City,state,country,world) the reverse applies.
My argument lies in the fact that I don't see many alternatives in the health issue that would actually help the sick rather than suck their pockets dry.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Have you ever thought how many people would die because of a public healthplan? Unless they opted for a private health plan, they would get a poor quality service and wait months for a common surgery. Thats why I think they should reform the three big problems in healthcare first then see if there is still a need.
If people are dicks, they do not deserve government assistance -- because they are dicks. If they are dicks they deserve nothing from anyone. Do you think GirlGeek is a dick? that is what you are saying? Are you alsos aying her SON was a dick? Are YOU a dick? I disagree with you. I think you are a pretty decent guy but you do not see the final consequences of your theories and preferred policies.
But, since you are appearing to believe that the only eternal morality is the rule of brute force...then it is IMMORAL to help people either way -- by force of by choice -- so basically YOU are saying the child should die. because he is a dick bny your definition and he on;y has the right to what HE can take through brute force -- which would be nothing, since he was a sick child.
I disagree with that assessment of reality and humanity.
Socialism would never have risen if people are dicks. Socialism shows that people DO care - care enough to force others who they feel don't care into caring. It is a wrong way to go about it but it disproves the theory that "people are dicks." It is the best within us that gets perverted into something bad under socialism.
The fact is I find that people are generous, and the freer they are, the more generous they are -- and most of human history bears me out.
Again, if people are dicks, as you say (and I disagree), they do not deserve what you want to give them through force of arms.
By "dick" as I have explained is that unless something affect us or we have something to gain from it, we won't act on that. And when many people hold the same moral or ethical ruleset they will force it eventually to the "weaker" ones of their community. Thanks for the compliment by the way, and it's normal that one person cannot see the final consequence of a theory. Hence why I discuss it. In my context then yes, you and me and everyone are. Not "evil" persons, but first you will look into your own well being before others.
I do believe that brute force is an absolute. Not the ONLY one, but one of the sure things in reality. Permission after all is needless to one that has power to get what he wants without it.
You make a leap of logic here though. Just because someone is a dick doesn't mean he doesn't deserve help. You of all people (being christian and all) should know:)
In the case of the child? A hypothetical scenario would be that his family would amass a good number of people to perform a charity, applying to the guilt and/or decency of other people. That's also brute force, just of a different kind. Instead they used a ruleset provided by the government which is also another kind of brute force.
So although I disagree with socialism I see it through that context. Many people want socialism hence by sheer force of numbers they can force it all they want on the rest of us one way or another. I do agree that people can be generous but only in a micro level. That means only in small communities, the more expanded the community gets (City,state,country,world) the reverse applies.
My argument lies in the fact that I don't see many alternatives in the health issue that would actually help the sick rather than suck their pockets dry.
Looking after your own well-being is being a dick? Sorry I have to disagree with your use of the word.
Plus, in this case, you don't want to help people. If you did you would simply help them. You want to FORCE people to help people. If you want to help people, help them.
Me being a Christian tells me theft and force are not the answers. Force fails and IS evil, and IS the "way of the dick." This is why i against using government. Socialism by its very nature turns "dicks," as you like to call normal, self-interested people, and turns them by definition into thugs of the state, or the beneficiaries of such thuggishness. To me, a selfish "dick" is better than a thieving thug any day.
I know that, because most people want something for nothing, they favor socialism, which is why we have most of the problems today. Plus socialist education systems are designed to preach socialism, not liberty. They teach that the way of the thug is right.
That doesn't mean we should sit idly by and cheer as moral cannibalism destroys all civilization and replaces it with barbarism sold in an altruistic cloak.
I see no evidence that socialism succeeds. OUR system, the mess here, is already the product of mixing socialism with capitalism -- the more socialist -- the more bankrupt it will become. I do not see Europe with its bloated bureaucracy and its having to continually devote more and more of their national wealth to their socialist schemes as being particularly successful either.
By "dick" as I have explained is that unless something affect us or we have something to gain from it, we won't act on that. And when many people hold the same moral or ethical ruleset they will force it eventually to the "weaker" ones of their community. Thanks for the compliment by the way, and it's normal that one person cannot see the final consequence of a theory. Hence why I discuss it. In my context then yes, you and me and everyone are. Not "evil" persons, but first you will look into your own well being before others.
I do believe that brute force is an absolute. Not the ONLY one, but one of the sure things in reality. Permission after all is needless to one that has power to get what he wants without it.
You make a leap of logic here though. Just because someone is a dick doesn't mean he doesn't deserve help. You of all people (being christian and all) should know:)
In the case of the child? A hypothetical scenario would be that his family would amass a good number of people to perform a charity, applying to the guilt and/or decency of other people. That's also brute force, just of a different kind. Instead they used a ruleset provided by the government which is also another kind of brute force.
So although I disagree with socialism I see it through that context. Many people want socialism hence by sheer force of numbers they can force it all they want on the rest of us one way or another. I do agree that people can be generous but only in a micro level. That means only in small communities, the more expanded the community gets (City,state,country,world) the reverse applies.
My argument lies in the fact that I don't see many alternatives in the health issue that would actually help the sick rather than suck their pockets dry.
Looking after your own well-being is being a dick? Sorry I have to disagree with your use of the word.
Plus, in this case, you don't want to help people. If you did you would simply help them. You want to FORCE people to help people. If you want to help people, help them.
Me being a Christian tells me theft and force are not the answers. Force fails and IS evil, and IS the "way of the dick." This is why i against using government. Socialism by its very nature turns "dicks," as you like to call normal, self-interested people, and turns them by definition into thugs of the state, or the beneficiaries of such thuggishness. To me, a selfish "dick" is better than a thieving thug any day.
I know that, because most people want something for nothing, they favor socialism, which is why we have most of the problems today. Plus socialist education systems are designed to preach socialism, not liberty. They teach that the way of the thug is right.
That doesn't mean we should sit idly by and cheer as moral cannibalism destroys all civilization and replaces it with barbarism sold in an altruistic cloak.
I see no evidence that socialism succeeds. OUR system, the mess here, is already the product of mixing socialism with capitalism -- the more socialist -- the more bankrupt it will become. I do not see Europe with its bloated bureaucracy and its having to continually devote more and more of their national wealth to their socialist schemes as being particularly successful either.
Being a dick means that you go only for your self interests over anything else and over anyone else. Hence the rough term. It's part of nature in general not only a major aspect of humanity.
See that's the point you miss Fisher. When you want to help people, you will help people. Then as you become stronger and better you gain support and you can help even more. And somewhere along the road you can help people before they even need help and the slippery slope begins. It's basic human nature to want to enforce your will up the world around you.
Socialism in my opinion doesn't turn "normal" people into dicks. People are already that because as I mentioned before it's the very essence of human nature to look after their own skin even if they have to step on someone to do it. Socialism as it stands now appeals to that aspect by organizing them into such groups so they can be more efficient and hard to defeat.
Of course it doesn't mean that we should sit idly, but I am sure you realize it's an uphill battle and ,without being too pesimmistic , a losing one also.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
By "dick" as I have explained is that unless something affect us or we have something to gain from it, we won't act on that. And when many people hold the same moral or ethical ruleset they will force it eventually to the "weaker" ones of their community. Thanks for the compliment by the way, and it's normal that one person cannot see the final consequence of a theory. Hence why I discuss it. In my context then yes, you and me and everyone are. Not "evil" persons, but first you will look into your own well being before others.
I do believe that brute force is an absolute. Not the ONLY one, but one of the sure things in reality. Permission after all is needless to one that has power to get what he wants without it.
You make a leap of logic here though. Just because someone is a dick doesn't mean he doesn't deserve help. You of all people (being christian and all) should know:)
In the case of the child? A hypothetical scenario would be that his family would amass a good number of people to perform a charity, applying to the guilt and/or decency of other people. That's also brute force, just of a different kind. Instead they used a ruleset provided by the government which is also another kind of brute force.
So although I disagree with socialism I see it through that context. Many people want socialism hence by sheer force of numbers they can force it all they want on the rest of us one way or another. I do agree that people can be generous but only in a micro level. That means only in small communities, the more expanded the community gets (City,state,country,world) the reverse applies.
My argument lies in the fact that I don't see many alternatives in the health issue that would actually help the sick rather than suck their pockets dry.
Looking after your own well-being is being a dick? Sorry I have to disagree with your use of the word.
Plus, in this case, you don't want to help people. If you did you would simply help them. You want to FORCE people to help people. If you want to help people, help them.
Me being a Christian tells me theft and force are not the answers. Force fails and IS evil, and IS the "way of the dick." This is why i against using government. Socialism by its very nature turns "dicks," as you like to call normal, self-interested people, and turns them by definition into thugs of the state, or the beneficiaries of such thuggishness. To me, a selfish "dick" is better than a thieving thug any day.
I know that, because most people want something for nothing, they favor socialism, which is why we have most of the problems today. Plus socialist education systems are designed to preach socialism, not liberty. They teach that the way of the thug is right.
That doesn't mean we should sit idly by and cheer as moral cannibalism destroys all civilization and replaces it with barbarism sold in an altruistic cloak.
I see no evidence that socialism succeeds. OUR system, the mess here, is already the product of mixing socialism with capitalism -- the more socialist -- the more bankrupt it will become. I do not see Europe with its bloated bureaucracy and its having to continually devote more and more of their national wealth to their socialist schemes as being particularly successful either.
Being a dick means that you go only for your self interests over anything else and over anyone else. Hence the rough term. It's part of nature in general not only a major aspect of humanity.
See that's the point you miss Fisher. When you want to help people, you will help people. Then as you become stronger and better you gain support and you can help even more. And somewhere along the road you can help people before they even need help and the slippery slope begins. It's basic human nature to want to enforce your will up the world around you.
Socialism in my opinion doesn't turn "normal" people into dicks. People are already that because as I mentioned before it's the very essence of human nature to look after their own skin even if they have to step on someone to do it. Socialism as it stands now appeals to that aspect by organizing them into such groups so they can be more efficient and hard to defeat.
Of course it doesn't mean that we should sit idly, but I am sure you realize it's an uphill battle and ,without being too pesimmistic , a losing one also.
I don't think its a losing battle. In fact, I see the evolution of liberty over thousands of years -- and even though there are continuous returns to barbarism, the current one being the Marxist line of thought, the bulk of human history has still been progress towards greater and greater freedom in more and more places.
There are more "free" countries than ever before, and I see that continuing. Freedom works. freedom delivers the goods. Then people forget, and there is a backslide (like now under Obama and his socialistic congress). Then when it fails people will realize again. This is precisely what happened when people chose Reagan after the failure of the socialistic "great society" programs.
Twenty years ago no one knew what a libertarian was. Last year we had one in the Republican presidential debates. That is incredible progress in my view. Ayn Rand's books are selling at record levels, as are books advocating economic freedom. How many leftist/socialist books make the NYT Best Seller list?
Obama had to HIDE what he was to get elected, and be up against a very left-leaning McCain (economically speaking). Most people still think in America that government is too big, that government IS the problem and not the solution, and the next candidate to fully embrace that will be guaranteed two terms. The MINUTE the Republican party actually embraces economic libertarianism they will win again.
Oh, and sorry, I said socialism turns "dicks" into "thugs," not normal people into dicks. I am using your definition for fun, and showing how it makes them worse, because by its very nature, capitalism rewards meeting people's needs at an affordable cost, while socialism politicises everything, and means the biggest thug wins.
I would rather live in a society of selfish dicks, as YOU call them, then theiving thugs.
Comments
LOL! That is why I said take that wall of text... did you bother to read it? LOL.. I wish healthcare had a simple answer. Though it is a nightamrish wall of text, if you bother to read it, you could learn something. I have dealt with this issue hands on, and I could tell you so much more, but there is little time to explain why things they are the way they are, and how awful they really are. while we speak there are more that are falling victim to this system, and for them every second counts.
yeah i read the whole thing and it makes me a little bewildered that people would get new cabinets just for the sake of looking different, (i'm sure a doctor would care more about the multiple pools and other stuff then cabinets) or not giving out the good medication. But i guess i'm not that surprised as greed and big corporations go hand in hand together. It seems to me that the medical corporations are the ones who fuck over people more then any other corporation AND get away with it. There must be very little if any competition between these pharmaceutical (sp?) companys. As far as the insurance story goes (the one with the little girl) it was nice to hear the clinic helped them, but its kind of frightnening that the medical insurance you pay for might not always cover you, i'm guessing you wont read that in fine print either.
It is not profitable to the pharmaceuticals to compete with each other, so the different companies usually stay with their specialties for the most part, though they do try to some extent, and their reps are very aggressive at trying to get doctors to prescribe their medications. But the larger issue here is that they shouldn;t be attempting to bribe doctors at all, their medication should speak for itself. There is no need for any of that, they can publish their research findings for doctors to read, and the results should speak for themselves. The Television ads are absurd. Patients should not be going into doctors offices demanding different medications, they should leave that up to their doctor to determine what is the best course of treatment. Many of the medications advertised have such terrible side effects that the doctors choose not to give them that because there are other medications available with less side effects.
I do think that pharmaceutical companies need to have humanitarian laws implented on them. They should be held accountable criminally for their actions. Their actions directly result in loss of human life, and should be treated as such.
As far as medical insurance goes, I would rather do away with that entire industry and just finance the doctors, clincs and hospitals in order to reduce the costs and time it takes to receive treatment. Yes you pay for something they can choose not to provide when the time comes, and often keep things tied up until a patient dies. It is disgusting.
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Simple. You go to McDonalds, you want a big mac. But you don't have any money, and you are hungry. McDonald's tells you to bad so sad, no Big Mac for you untill you get some cash. That's a business.
A little child, say 7 years old is hit by a car near a Hospital. The child has internal bleeding. If treated immediately, the child will live, if not treated immediately the child will die.
If the Hospital is just like McDonald's then the Hospital can say, little child you don't have health insurance, and yoru parents don't have any money. No surgery for you, go ahead and die. We're trying to run a business here.
When you think you can pass legislation to let Hospitals operate like that let me know. That's when Health Care will be a business.
A nice story. There are still ways to collect the money, with your story the person hitting the girl can pay for the treatment.
There are not always ways to collect money.
Little girl falls down and breaks some bones causing same injuries.
Who are you going to collect from?
The guy that hit her died in the car crash, with no insurance or family.
Who are you going to collect from?
It's simply a fallacy to say there will always be someone you can charge, or that it will always be someone's fault. Sometimes there will be no one to charge, and it will be no one's fault, but the treatment will still necessary.
If you were strictly a business, you'd be able to let people die that didnt' have money for treatment, but that's against the law.
When you can change that law, THEN medicine will be a business.
This is a good point, and this is one of the main reasons insurance companies charge so damn much.
They already know that in many cases, especially when times get worse, that there are simply times when huge bills come up and they have no one to sue to recoup those losses, so they jack up everyone's premiums from the start. That's why it costs $13,000/yr even if you NEVER use your health insurance.. for the people who can't get sued.
When the government pays, this isn't an issue and they can't tell me that billions upon billions can be spent in Iraq and on the captured "insurgents" for LIFE, while Americans have to go without. It's just a stupid argument these people keep putting up that there isn't any money for healthcare available when their are plenty of areas to cut back without causing a dent.
Taking out the high cost of insurance would also be another benefit to government healthcare. Private giants like AIG would have to lower their rates to compete with the government so if you want to pay for your own insurance, you'd actually end up paying LESS in the long run privately, not more.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Since we're on the subject of healthcare, I find this good reading. Just saw it this morning.
emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/06/23/health-care-myths/
Remember this issue is worthy of debate, but you gotta keep an open mind and listen to both sides of the arguments. It's very hard to weed out bs and rhetoric to find facts these days.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
The so called myth about hospitals and the costs of treating non payers is misleading. First. the majority of hospitals are not public hospitals and the catagories should be separated to actually geta proper precentage of the hospitals that are actually handling these people. The public hospitals are at a much higher percentage than 5% of their costs, but lumping in both private and public hospitals it softens the overall percentages. This data also leaves out the free clinics and doctors offices entirely. To gain a better perspective on this they would have to only include hospitals, clinics and doctors offices that treat everyone regardless of ability to pay. They crunch their numbers. If hospitals, clinics and doctors offices do not accept non paying patients and send them elsewhere, they should not be included in this lump sum, since it does not apply to them.
Psssh, I feel dumb now. I just did a bit more research. There is a way for complete universal healthcare in the United States without increases taxes at all. Infact it may even reduce taxes. Here is a simple break down of that plan.
a. Healthcare Reform and Regulation. Follow the IADMD plan towards healthcare coverage. Malpractice courts will be treated similiarly to Employment courts. A panel would disperse damages to victims instead of having high priced jury trials were the Lawyer gets all or most of the settlement. Pharmecuticals will have stiffer oversight and regulation placed on them. They will be forbidden from bribing and gifting Doctors.
b. If healthcare costs drop below $190/month per plan regardless of precondition and age, then switch funds from Medicare/Medicaid to Universal Healthcare. According to the IADMD following their plan would reduce premiums to $100/month. So it should be achievable. The total budget going towards Medicare/Medicaid is $600~$800 Billion that goes to paying for what Universal Healthcare would pay for.
c. Continue to monitor healthcare in order to prevent fraud.
The IADMD plan is a plan worth supporting. It offers real solutions, not just create more problems like the other proposed plans. I wish more people would give them more support, so that we can have true universal, complete coverage for our people.
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
What it boils down to, gentlemen and ladies, is that, as someone who is more or less dependent on government healthcare, I can assure you that it is something you do NOT want to ever be forced to deal with. I once required surgery...it took the VA a year to decide that something was wrong and another year to take action. In the meantime, I was bleeding internally that entire two years while they decided "hey, something isn't right here!"
By contrast, in a medical emergency two years ago, I visited a non-government-run emergency room. In the non-government-run facility, I was triaged within 15 minutes, slapped on a backboard with a C-collar, treated for shock, and in see a physician and get x-rays within 40 minutes of arrival. In a total of two and a half hours, I had been correctly diagnosed, scheduled with physical therapy, had my prescriptions filled, and was home resting in my own bed with medication adequate to the task of relieving the pain of a severe spinal injury (the VA is loathe to give painkillers that actually work because those painkillers are frequently narcotic and that means that, by default, if you ask for something stronger than ibuprofen, you must be a drug addict - according to the VA).
In a government-run hospital (government healthcare is something with which I have an extensive 16 year history with - from my time as an active duty soldier until now, and over the years it has gotten worse, not better), I would have waited anywhere from 1 to 4 hours to be triaged, then another 1 to four hours to see a doctor. The wait in x-ray, even for "stat" films is generally a minimum of two hours. For physical therapy, I would have had to call to set up a consult, would have waited 3 to six weeks just for the consult, then would have had to wait another three to six weeks just to start physical therapy. The wait for prescriptions would have had me in the pharmacy's waiting room at the VA for anywhere from two to four hours (which is the typical wait at a VA hospital pharmacy in my experience). When I go to the doctor for a routine appointment - say, an annual checkup - it is an all-day affair...just to spend ten minutes with my doctor.
I am against federal/government healthcare...but only because of my experience with it. I wouldn't wish government healthcare on my worst enemy, let alone an unsuspecting American public who really does not know what they are asking for.
As the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for...you just might get it."
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
fishermage.blogspot.com
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
Of course the "moral" way fisher is giving rather than taking.
But people to put it bluntly are dicks. Simple as that. Noone gives a crap if her son would die unless it somehow affected them or if it was in their best interest to help.
Should the government interfere that much? Probably not. But then again what is the alternative? And how sure it is that it will actually save lives?
And morally Fisher, if someone is stronger and better than you he has the right to take whatever they want, that is the one moral that never changes.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
In an ideal world giving health care to everyone would work. But all the charities combined don't have enough to give health care to everyone.
And the whole "They're stealing my money argument is BS." I don't see the same people complaining about the government "stealing" their money to pay for the military.
The Official God FAQ
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
In an ideal world giving health care to everyone would work. But all the charities combined don't have enough to give health care to everyone.
And the whole "They're stealing my money argument is BS." I don't see the same people complaining about the government "stealing" their money to pay for the military.
BS to you, but interesting how you can't reasonably argue the point. The military is a stated function and power of our federal government according to our Constitution. Health care is not.
Government is for the things worth shooting someone over. You cotact an agent to protect your RIGHTS, which are those things individuals are morally entitled to have BY FORCE, life liberty and property.
That is why we have a militrary, and why our government was consituted.
Governments are not instituted among men to take the incoem of one citizen, by a servic e from a second citizen and give it to a third citizen. That has nothing to do with OUR government -- the product of enlightenment rationalism -- but rather the governments founded as the product of Marxism.
I happen to disagree with that point of view, and agree with the point of view that led to our constitution.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
In an ideal world giving health care to everyone would work. But all the charities combined don't have enough to give health care to everyone.
And the whole "They're stealing my money argument is BS." I don't see the same people complaining about the government "stealing" their money to pay for the military.
BS to you, but interesting how you can't reasonably argue the point. The military is a stated function and power of our federal government according to our Constitution. Health care is not.
Government is for the things worth shooting someone over. You cotact an agent to protect your RIGHTS, which are those things individuals are morally entitled to have BY FORCE, life liberty and property.
That is why we have a militrary, and why our government was consituted.
Governments are not instituted among men to take the incoem of one citizen, by a servic e from a second citizen and give it to a third citizen. That has nothing to do with OUR government -- the product of enlightenment rationalism -- but rather the governments founded as the product of Marxism.
I happen to disagree with that point of view, and agree with the point of view that led to our constitution.
So you're against ever changing the laws of our land because the people who founded this country got it "perfect"? The Bill of Rights has more holes in it than a fishing net. It's vague, and can be used to argue multiple sides of a debate. The fact that there have been 17 additional ammendments proves this fact.
The Official God FAQ
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
In an ideal world giving health care to everyone would work. But all the charities combined don't have enough to give health care to everyone.
And the whole "They're stealing my money argument is BS." I don't see the same people complaining about the government "stealing" their money to pay for the military.
BS to you, but interesting how you can't reasonably argue the point. The military is a stated function and power of our federal government according to our Constitution. Health care is not.
Government is for the things worth shooting someone over. You cotact an agent to protect your RIGHTS, which are those things individuals are morally entitled to have BY FORCE, life liberty and property.
That is why we have a militrary, and why our government was consituted.
Governments are not instituted among men to take the incoem of one citizen, by a servic e from a second citizen and give it to a third citizen. That has nothing to do with OUR government -- the product of enlightenment rationalism -- but rather the governments founded as the product of Marxism.
I happen to disagree with that point of view, and agree with the point of view that led to our constitution.
So you're against ever changing the laws of our land because the people who founded this country got it "perfect"? The Bill of Rights has more holes in it than a fishing net. It's vague, and can be used to argue multiple sides of a debate. The fact that there have been 17 additional ammendments proves this fact.
No, I agree with the founding principles of our government, and the enlightenment rationalist view of government, being the protector of whart we call "negative rights." You do not, and favor a different idea of government entirely. To that end you will use the vagueness to impose your will on others -- even if it blatantly violates the entire meaning of the thing. I understand that, I merely disagree.
fishermage.blogspot.com
QFT.
And....it totally pisses me off, considering that my son had heart surgery in January, paid for by MEDICAID, thank you very much, because I could not AFFORD it. Without this surgery, he could have died. So you, OP, can just bite me.
Stupid selfish people that have never experienced any NEED in their lives.... /smack.
And before you start in on this....YES we are gainfully employed, and so is our son. Yes we have insurance that we PAY for....and we pay a LOT. However, since our son just turned 18 and was no longer in school....he was not covered on the insurance. Now are you saying that he deserved to DIE for that?
Right. Your problems are fixed with my tax dollar money and I'm the selfish one?
Death and illness or horrible things, but the world is what it is. If Africans have no food they starve to death. It's simple as that. Yet you think human civilization is so above what it really is that everyone pitches in money to save an occasional life?
Sorry, the world doesn't work like that. It's not the governments job to force your neighbors to pay for your problems. You can be a bleeding heart humanitarian all you want, it doesn't change the laws of scarcity with supply/demand. If there's not enough medicine.. people die. The way we humans decide who gets the rare resources (like medicine/healthcare) is through an economic system with money.
Some surgories cost as much as a house. How about you go up and survey americans and ask, "Would you demolish your house to save a little boy?" Most would say no. That's essentially what you are doing with gov. health insurence. You are taking money away from the people and redistrubuting it.
-------------------------
TY girlgeek. That post was one from someone living in the real world.
Again, the people in this thread arguing healthcare is a waste are either
1) Still on their parent's insurance and have no idea what it really costs the AVERAGE American family a year - at least $13,000 dollars.
2) Have a job where their employer are giving them good benefits (like I had with the state that costs, if I paid on my own $15,000/yr for full family coverage)
3) Never had been seriously ill or injured in their lives or know someone who has and couldn't pay for it.
4) Just people trying to troll about life in general
Three quarters of the American people when asked, want SINGLE PAYER healthcare. For those who don't know what that means, that's the government paying it. About 75% of people want this. The few small voices here arguing against it are against the norm and if you were able to remember some of what they posted personally, you'd know they are well taken care of.
One is a nurse (yeah, she really is lacking for health insurance.. nurses make 50K/yr WITH benefits), one writes all day because.. he can afford to and doesn't have to worry about insurance. Most of them are just kids who never had to pay for any kind of health insurance, mortgage, life insurance or anything because they have always been single with no kids. They are probably on their second job ever in life and only have to pay for three things: a car, their cell phone texting and half a roommate's rent. I'm not knocking their lifestyles, but they aren't living in reality and understanding how MOST of America is doing because they are doing so well. One or two of these people without guaranteed benefits slip, and they'd be the first one in line filing for Social Security/Disablity/Unemployment so they really need to get off the high horse, lol.
Me? I'm retired (early) and have excellent healthcare. I could easily sit in their camp and say I don't want single payer because it will raise my taxes. Anyone can do that when you don't have to worry about anything. But you know what? I recognize that as a citizen, I owe more to my fellow man and everyone deserves good adequate care whether they can afford it or not. You can't but react when you drop off donated, used furniture to people who just lost their jobs, had to move because one of the breadwinners got sick for 3 months and their boss just couldn't wait until they got back.
Your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to this subject and the treatment of people amaze me.
Who is the Nurse posting on thsi thread? I haven'e seen one.. I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a "nurse". Medical Doctor does not equal RN, DO, PA or anything else other than MD. I specialized in Pediatric Medicine. Though I do not currently practice, I do not go around spouting off my qualifications at random. You insult and disregard information to support your cause, regardless of it's merit.
Claiming that I do not understand what the hard working people of this country are going through because I do well for myself, and not not a measly $50k a year , but I earned everything I have in this world for myself, without my parents assistance. I am one of ten children from the same two parents, my father was paralyzed for 2 years while I was growing up, and no, I had no college fund, my parents did not buy me my first car, my parents didn't give me anything to get my life started. I did for myself, and had the same playing field everyone else does. I have done without meals, was unable to pay my bills, and did not have any health coverage in college. I would love to see these "people who have never had to struggle" because there are so few of them, you do not run into them often.
Most people in this country earned for themselves and had nothing handed to them. They understand veryt well the struggles we all have gone through. Life is what you make of it, some view the obstacles in life as challenges, others view them as barriers. I see the bankruptcies due to illness or injury as preventable, and want to see real solutions here, not just an incomplete, ineffective plan that gives the government more power. So if Obama gave his support for the IADMD plan would you as well? To you, is it all a matter of if dems say it is okay then I will support it? Or do you put real thought behind your endorsement?
And YOU still didn't answer my question.....
Should my son have had to DIE rather than applying for Medicaid?
You're completely out of touch with the reality that MOST people in this country are experiencing.
End of story.
You expect him to "do for himself" to the tune of 50 THOUSAND dollars when he JUST got out of high school?? Yeah....right. So in other words....that money for his surgery was supposed to what....I dont' know....fall out of his BUTT?? Did YOU have 50K for surgery right after YOU got out of high school?
Are you inferring that the right to LIVE is something that was just "handed to him?"
Good gawd I hope you never have a child that needs financial aid to SURVIVE. Karma is a funny thing. If I were YOU....I'd tread lightly on this water. You never know what situation you might wake up in tomorrow.
Life can change in a matter of SECONDS. Some day, perhaps, you'll have a greater enlightenment about that.
Of course your son shouldn't die. That is not the question. The question is which is morally and ethically proper? To take your son's health care from another by the brute force of the state or have to rely on the voluntary contributions of others.
All goods and services, including medicine, has to come from somehwre and someone. The on;y question is should people be FORCED to pay for the health care of others or not.
Obviously YOU feel it is okay to force others to pay for your son -- after all, it's your son, and I understand. The real question is: is such theft a proper function of government or not? I say no, regardless of the Karmic threats you want to make in response to others having a difference of opinion with you on this matter.
At any rate, we can see there are no reasonable arguments for this: appeal to pity, it's a right because we say it is, it's a right because Europe says it is, it's a right because people NEED it.
I'm sorry what you went through with your son -- but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to take money from people by force to pay for his care. No matter what you have to rely on others -- I feel a better way, a more moral way, is GIVING rather than TAKING.
Of course the "moral" way fisher is giving rather than taking.
But people to put it bluntly are dicks. Simple as that. Noone gives a crap if her son would die unless it somehow affected them or if it was in their best interest to help.
Should the government interfere that much? Probably not. But then again what is the alternative? And how sure it is that it will actually save lives?
And morally Fisher, if someone is stronger and better than you he has the right to take whatever they want, that is the one moral that never changes.
If people are dicks, they do not deserve government assistance -- because they are dicks. If they are dicks they deserve nothing from anyone. Do you think GirlGeek is a dick? that is what you are saying? Are you alsos aying her SON was a dick? Are YOU a dick? I disagree with you. I think you are a pretty decent guy but you do not see the final consequences of your theories and preferred policies.
But, since you are appearing to believe that the only eternal morality is the rule of brute force...then it is IMMORAL to help people either way -- by force of by choice -- so basically YOU are saying the child should die. because he is a dick bny your definition and he on;y has the right to what HE can take through brute force -- which would be nothing, since he was a sick child.
I disagree with that assessment of reality and humanity.
Socialism would never have risen if people are dicks. Socialism shows that people DO care - care enough to force others who they feel don't care into caring. It is a wrong way to go about it but it disproves the theory that "people are dicks." It is the best within us that gets perverted into something bad under socialism.
The fact is I find that people are generous, and the freer they are, the more generous they are -- and most of human history bears me out.
Again, if people are dicks, as you say (and I disagree), they do not deserve what you want to give them through force of arms.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You silly Americans always misunderstand universal healthcare and socialism in general.
You view both as some sort of charity when you should be viewing it as insurance. Do any of you pay insurance to support your fellow man? Has anybody? You pay it to cover your own ass.
Under universal healthcare, as with proper socialist programs, everyone benefits equally.
As far as the OPs question about goods/services goes... healthcare is not something you can afford on your own, if it was you wouldn't need insurance - healthcare is something where you need to rely on the support of your fellow man and they need to rely on you. That's a fact.
The arguement is not about healthcare - it's about who can provide a better service. Private insurance companies that hire detectives to find holes in your claims or another system where all Americans are protected and nobody is rejected because they forgot to tell their insurance company about that mild illness they had 30 years ago. Private insurance companies that stand between you and the proper care that you need, or another system where you get the best treatment you can get because there is no pencil pushing dictator deciding that treatment is too expensive so the insurance company will not cover it.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
If people are dicks, they do not deserve government assistance -- because they are dicks. If they are dicks they deserve nothing from anyone. Do you think GirlGeek is a dick? that is what you are saying? Are you alsos aying her SON was a dick? Are YOU a dick? I disagree with you. I think you are a pretty decent guy but you do not see the final consequences of your theories and preferred policies.
But, since you are appearing to believe that the only eternal morality is the rule of brute force...then it is IMMORAL to help people either way -- by force of by choice -- so basically YOU are saying the child should die. because he is a dick bny your definition and he on;y has the right to what HE can take through brute force -- which would be nothing, since he was a sick child.
I disagree with that assessment of reality and humanity.
Socialism would never have risen if people are dicks. Socialism shows that people DO care - care enough to force others who they feel don't care into caring. It is a wrong way to go about it but it disproves the theory that "people are dicks." It is the best within us that gets perverted into something bad under socialism.
The fact is I find that people are generous, and the freer they are, the more generous they are -- and most of human history bears me out.
Again, if people are dicks, as you say (and I disagree), they do not deserve what you want to give them through force of arms.
By "dick" as I have explained is that unless something affect us or we have something to gain from it, we won't act on that. And when many people hold the same moral or ethical ruleset they will force it eventually to the "weaker" ones of their community. Thanks for the compliment by the way, and it's normal that one person cannot see the final consequence of a theory. Hence why I discuss it. In my context then yes, you and me and everyone are. Not "evil" persons, but first you will look into your own well being before others.
I do believe that brute force is an absolute. Not the ONLY one, but one of the sure things in reality. Permission after all is needless to one that has power to get what he wants without it.
You make a leap of logic here though. Just because someone is a dick doesn't mean he doesn't deserve help. You of all people (being christian and all) should know:)
In the case of the child? A hypothetical scenario would be that his family would amass a good number of people to perform a charity, applying to the guilt and/or decency of other people. That's also brute force, just of a different kind. Instead they used a ruleset provided by the government which is also another kind of brute force.
So although I disagree with socialism I see it through that context. Many people want socialism hence by sheer force of numbers they can force it all they want on the rest of us one way or another. I do agree that people can be generous but only in a micro level. That means only in small communities, the more expanded the community gets (City,state,country,world) the reverse applies.
My argument lies in the fact that I don't see many alternatives in the health issue that would actually help the sick rather than suck their pockets dry.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Have you ever thought how many people would die because of a public healthplan? Unless they opted for a private health plan, they would get a poor quality service and wait months for a common surgery. Thats why I think they should reform the three big problems in healthcare first then see if there is still a need.
If people are dicks, they do not deserve government assistance -- because they are dicks. If they are dicks they deserve nothing from anyone. Do you think GirlGeek is a dick? that is what you are saying? Are you alsos aying her SON was a dick? Are YOU a dick? I disagree with you. I think you are a pretty decent guy but you do not see the final consequences of your theories and preferred policies.
But, since you are appearing to believe that the only eternal morality is the rule of brute force...then it is IMMORAL to help people either way -- by force of by choice -- so basically YOU are saying the child should die. because he is a dick bny your definition and he on;y has the right to what HE can take through brute force -- which would be nothing, since he was a sick child.
I disagree with that assessment of reality and humanity.
Socialism would never have risen if people are dicks. Socialism shows that people DO care - care enough to force others who they feel don't care into caring. It is a wrong way to go about it but it disproves the theory that "people are dicks." It is the best within us that gets perverted into something bad under socialism.
The fact is I find that people are generous, and the freer they are, the more generous they are -- and most of human history bears me out.
Again, if people are dicks, as you say (and I disagree), they do not deserve what you want to give them through force of arms.
By "dick" as I have explained is that unless something affect us or we have something to gain from it, we won't act on that. And when many people hold the same moral or ethical ruleset they will force it eventually to the "weaker" ones of their community. Thanks for the compliment by the way, and it's normal that one person cannot see the final consequence of a theory. Hence why I discuss it. In my context then yes, you and me and everyone are. Not "evil" persons, but first you will look into your own well being before others.
I do believe that brute force is an absolute. Not the ONLY one, but one of the sure things in reality. Permission after all is needless to one that has power to get what he wants without it.
You make a leap of logic here though. Just because someone is a dick doesn't mean he doesn't deserve help. You of all people (being christian and all) should know:)
In the case of the child? A hypothetical scenario would be that his family would amass a good number of people to perform a charity, applying to the guilt and/or decency of other people. That's also brute force, just of a different kind. Instead they used a ruleset provided by the government which is also another kind of brute force.
So although I disagree with socialism I see it through that context. Many people want socialism hence by sheer force of numbers they can force it all they want on the rest of us one way or another. I do agree that people can be generous but only in a micro level. That means only in small communities, the more expanded the community gets (City,state,country,world) the reverse applies.
My argument lies in the fact that I don't see many alternatives in the health issue that would actually help the sick rather than suck their pockets dry.
Looking after your own well-being is being a dick? Sorry I have to disagree with your use of the word.
Plus, in this case, you don't want to help people. If you did you would simply help them. You want to FORCE people to help people. If you want to help people, help them.
Me being a Christian tells me theft and force are not the answers. Force fails and IS evil, and IS the "way of the dick." This is why i against using government. Socialism by its very nature turns "dicks," as you like to call normal, self-interested people, and turns them by definition into thugs of the state, or the beneficiaries of such thuggishness. To me, a selfish "dick" is better than a thieving thug any day.
I know that, because most people want something for nothing, they favor socialism, which is why we have most of the problems today. Plus socialist education systems are designed to preach socialism, not liberty. They teach that the way of the thug is right.
That doesn't mean we should sit idly by and cheer as moral cannibalism destroys all civilization and replaces it with barbarism sold in an altruistic cloak.
I see no evidence that socialism succeeds. OUR system, the mess here, is already the product of mixing socialism with capitalism -- the more socialist -- the more bankrupt it will become. I do not see Europe with its bloated bureaucracy and its having to continually devote more and more of their national wealth to their socialist schemes as being particularly successful either.
fishermage.blogspot.com
By "dick" as I have explained is that unless something affect us or we have something to gain from it, we won't act on that. And when many people hold the same moral or ethical ruleset they will force it eventually to the "weaker" ones of their community. Thanks for the compliment by the way, and it's normal that one person cannot see the final consequence of a theory. Hence why I discuss it. In my context then yes, you and me and everyone are. Not "evil" persons, but first you will look into your own well being before others.
I do believe that brute force is an absolute. Not the ONLY one, but one of the sure things in reality. Permission after all is needless to one that has power to get what he wants without it.
You make a leap of logic here though. Just because someone is a dick doesn't mean he doesn't deserve help. You of all people (being christian and all) should know:)
In the case of the child? A hypothetical scenario would be that his family would amass a good number of people to perform a charity, applying to the guilt and/or decency of other people. That's also brute force, just of a different kind. Instead they used a ruleset provided by the government which is also another kind of brute force.
So although I disagree with socialism I see it through that context. Many people want socialism hence by sheer force of numbers they can force it all they want on the rest of us one way or another. I do agree that people can be generous but only in a micro level. That means only in small communities, the more expanded the community gets (City,state,country,world) the reverse applies.
My argument lies in the fact that I don't see many alternatives in the health issue that would actually help the sick rather than suck their pockets dry.
Looking after your own well-being is being a dick? Sorry I have to disagree with your use of the word.
Plus, in this case, you don't want to help people. If you did you would simply help them. You want to FORCE people to help people. If you want to help people, help them.
Me being a Christian tells me theft and force are not the answers. Force fails and IS evil, and IS the "way of the dick." This is why i against using government. Socialism by its very nature turns "dicks," as you like to call normal, self-interested people, and turns them by definition into thugs of the state, or the beneficiaries of such thuggishness. To me, a selfish "dick" is better than a thieving thug any day.
I know that, because most people want something for nothing, they favor socialism, which is why we have most of the problems today. Plus socialist education systems are designed to preach socialism, not liberty. They teach that the way of the thug is right.
That doesn't mean we should sit idly by and cheer as moral cannibalism destroys all civilization and replaces it with barbarism sold in an altruistic cloak.
I see no evidence that socialism succeeds. OUR system, the mess here, is already the product of mixing socialism with capitalism -- the more socialist -- the more bankrupt it will become. I do not see Europe with its bloated bureaucracy and its having to continually devote more and more of their national wealth to their socialist schemes as being particularly successful either.
Being a dick means that you go only for your self interests over anything else and over anyone else. Hence the rough term. It's part of nature in general not only a major aspect of humanity.
See that's the point you miss Fisher. When you want to help people, you will help people. Then as you become stronger and better you gain support and you can help even more. And somewhere along the road you can help people before they even need help and the slippery slope begins. It's basic human nature to want to enforce your will up the world around you.
Socialism in my opinion doesn't turn "normal" people into dicks. People are already that because as I mentioned before it's the very essence of human nature to look after their own skin even if they have to step on someone to do it. Socialism as it stands now appeals to that aspect by organizing them into such groups so they can be more efficient and hard to defeat.
Of course it doesn't mean that we should sit idly, but I am sure you realize it's an uphill battle and ,without being too pesimmistic , a losing one also.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
By "dick" as I have explained is that unless something affect us or we have something to gain from it, we won't act on that. And when many people hold the same moral or ethical ruleset they will force it eventually to the "weaker" ones of their community. Thanks for the compliment by the way, and it's normal that one person cannot see the final consequence of a theory. Hence why I discuss it. In my context then yes, you and me and everyone are. Not "evil" persons, but first you will look into your own well being before others.
I do believe that brute force is an absolute. Not the ONLY one, but one of the sure things in reality. Permission after all is needless to one that has power to get what he wants without it.
You make a leap of logic here though. Just because someone is a dick doesn't mean he doesn't deserve help. You of all people (being christian and all) should know:)
In the case of the child? A hypothetical scenario would be that his family would amass a good number of people to perform a charity, applying to the guilt and/or decency of other people. That's also brute force, just of a different kind. Instead they used a ruleset provided by the government which is also another kind of brute force.
So although I disagree with socialism I see it through that context. Many people want socialism hence by sheer force of numbers they can force it all they want on the rest of us one way or another. I do agree that people can be generous but only in a micro level. That means only in small communities, the more expanded the community gets (City,state,country,world) the reverse applies.
My argument lies in the fact that I don't see many alternatives in the health issue that would actually help the sick rather than suck their pockets dry.
Looking after your own well-being is being a dick? Sorry I have to disagree with your use of the word.
Plus, in this case, you don't want to help people. If you did you would simply help them. You want to FORCE people to help people. If you want to help people, help them.
Me being a Christian tells me theft and force are not the answers. Force fails and IS evil, and IS the "way of the dick." This is why i against using government. Socialism by its very nature turns "dicks," as you like to call normal, self-interested people, and turns them by definition into thugs of the state, or the beneficiaries of such thuggishness. To me, a selfish "dick" is better than a thieving thug any day.
I know that, because most people want something for nothing, they favor socialism, which is why we have most of the problems today. Plus socialist education systems are designed to preach socialism, not liberty. They teach that the way of the thug is right.
That doesn't mean we should sit idly by and cheer as moral cannibalism destroys all civilization and replaces it with barbarism sold in an altruistic cloak.
I see no evidence that socialism succeeds. OUR system, the mess here, is already the product of mixing socialism with capitalism -- the more socialist -- the more bankrupt it will become. I do not see Europe with its bloated bureaucracy and its having to continually devote more and more of their national wealth to their socialist schemes as being particularly successful either.
Being a dick means that you go only for your self interests over anything else and over anyone else. Hence the rough term. It's part of nature in general not only a major aspect of humanity.
See that's the point you miss Fisher. When you want to help people, you will help people. Then as you become stronger and better you gain support and you can help even more. And somewhere along the road you can help people before they even need help and the slippery slope begins. It's basic human nature to want to enforce your will up the world around you.
Socialism in my opinion doesn't turn "normal" people into dicks. People are already that because as I mentioned before it's the very essence of human nature to look after their own skin even if they have to step on someone to do it. Socialism as it stands now appeals to that aspect by organizing them into such groups so they can be more efficient and hard to defeat.
Of course it doesn't mean that we should sit idly, but I am sure you realize it's an uphill battle and ,without being too pesimmistic , a losing one also.
I don't think its a losing battle. In fact, I see the evolution of liberty over thousands of years -- and even though there are continuous returns to barbarism, the current one being the Marxist line of thought, the bulk of human history has still been progress towards greater and greater freedom in more and more places.
There are more "free" countries than ever before, and I see that continuing. Freedom works. freedom delivers the goods. Then people forget, and there is a backslide (like now under Obama and his socialistic congress). Then when it fails people will realize again. This is precisely what happened when people chose Reagan after the failure of the socialistic "great society" programs.
Twenty years ago no one knew what a libertarian was. Last year we had one in the Republican presidential debates. That is incredible progress in my view. Ayn Rand's books are selling at record levels, as are books advocating economic freedom. How many leftist/socialist books make the NYT Best Seller list?
Obama had to HIDE what he was to get elected, and be up against a very left-leaning McCain (economically speaking). Most people still think in America that government is too big, that government IS the problem and not the solution, and the next candidate to fully embrace that will be guaranteed two terms. The MINUTE the Republican party actually embraces economic libertarianism they will win again.
Oh, and sorry, I said socialism turns "dicks" into "thugs," not normal people into dicks. I am using your definition for fun, and showing how it makes them worse, because by its very nature, capitalism rewards meeting people's needs at an affordable cost, while socialism politicises everything, and means the biggest thug wins.
I would rather live in a society of selfish dicks, as YOU call them, then theiving thugs.
fishermage.blogspot.com