Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLetter to the editor:
Constitution doesn’t mention health care
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.
I have asked my liberal friends, “If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people?” They usually answer, “Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.”
My question then is, “So was I born with an obligation to work to pay for someone else’s health care?” At this point, they will say something like, “You’re already paying for other people’s health care,” or, “That’s the wrong way to look at it,” or, “That sounds selfish,” or just “Yes.”
If health care is a right, then the government must provide for it, as it does national defense and public safety and a judicial system. If it is not, then government has no more business being involved in it than it has in grocery stores or hotels or automobiles. So is health care a right?
Our U.S. Constitution enumerates our rights. Their common characteristic is that they are about what government may not do to us. None of them says what others must do for us.
Health care is something that must be produced by doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and on and on. If we have a right to it, then we have a right to make others produce it and have others pay for it.
Our national debate on health care is going to decide much about the future prosperity of our nation. We need to base the debate on sound philosophical principles. If we do not, we may do damage that cannot be undone.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Clint Holmes is a big deal at Cabaret Jazz and 'The Carlyle!'; Playboy's furry-ous closing; Elvis is a 'Legend'
Joe Pesci remembers his own honeymoon in Vegas -- meeting the Rat Pack (1 Comment)
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
No one has a "right" to something paid for with someone else's money. Or rights are spelled out in the bill of rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
"Our U.S. Constitution enumerates our rights."
And the Declaration of Independence, another of our great historic documents, says that we are all endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Kinda hard to exercise those rights when you're dead.
I'm not asking for a handout. I'm asking for a fair shake. Right now, I'll NEVER get one from an industry that sees me as just a negative number on their balance sheet.
Health care should not be about how much money the insurance companies can squeeze out of us while telling the people who need it the most "Sorry, but you just cost too much to take care of. Have a nice life."
Hi DouglasDemocrat,
I always wonder who these sociopathic types that post here are. Do they openly espouse such stupid positions to family and friends? Are they Summerlin retirees with money made on the backs of others? Former insurance executives? Paid lobbyists? How did they get to be so despicable?
Where is P.R.A.D.D. (DouglasDemocrat) to say something stupid to this well-written opinion piece? He is usually first in line to spread liberal propoganda and hyperbole when confronted with a rational argument. He must be hanging with his communist heroes Chavez Castro and Kim Jong Il. C'mon P.R.A.D.D., we miss your stupidity!!
Do you actually have someting INTELLIGENT to saw Sword, or do you want to keep spouting your ignorance.
You don't know me. You don't know the UTTER HELL I've gone through thanks to "health care" in this country. I NEARLY DIED because of it. So don't stand in judgement of me, sir. YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT!
(And BTW - my name comes from the fact that I was raised in Douglas County.)
A few years ago, my mother-in-law died of a brain aneurism because she needed a shunt put into her head to save her life. But the insurance company defined that as "elective" surgery. I guess she just wasn't as deserving as the rest of you. May your philosophy serve you as well as it served her.
All you naysayers and unsuspecting healthcare happy people content with your situations, your day will come when you will discover that your insurance company is not your friend. Pre-existing conditions, procedure not covered, exceedes covered amount, treatment not approved medically. Get familiar with those terms now so the letdown won't be as hard as it was for the rest of us.
I guess it's true how ignorance is bliss. Healthcare in the U.S. is great, until you need it.
P.S. Get up to speed on the new bankruptcy laws before you get sick also!
Anti-health care reformists, please ask yourselves why we are the only modern society on earth that does not provide healthcare for all of it's citizens. Are we that superior in our thinking or just less Christ like than we pretend to be?
BTW thanks to our current system we rank 37th in the world in healthcare.
Rational answers appreciated as I would like to understand why we won't care for our neighbors. Would also like to know why a pre-existing condition makes me a second class citizen.
The provision of government provided health care is considered a right by those who buy into the concept of positive rights (government guaranteeing you rights like food, housing, income, health care, pensions etc). Positive rights are the antithesis of negative rights (government doesn't guarantee you anything but a right to live free from violence and coercion).
To have positive rights you MUST ASSERT that one individual has a greater claim to rights than another individual because the provision of positive rights requires that you seize the property and harm the well being of another individual. Basically you MUST ASSERT that some people are MORE FREE than others. This was CLEARLY not how the U.S. was designed. The framers of our constitution had clear intentions -- the protection of negative rights.
The government was to provide courts, police and defense to protect our property from theft, our and our body from violent physical harm by others both domestic and foreign.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are NEGATIVE RIGHTS. The government is not guaranteeing that it provides you life, it is not providing your liberty, or even happiness (property). The governments job is simply to DENY Others (including government itself) from taking your life, your liberty and your property. THAT IS IT.
The idea is simply to take away rights from one person only to provide additional rights and protections to a special class of people. Positive rights are inhumane, immoral, elitist, unfree and un-American.
I think one of the basic problems is that the concept of "health insurance" itself encourages higher prices for medical care. When providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) know that it isn't the patient paying for services, and fearing potential lawsuits if something is overlooked, they are more likely to request more tests and prescribe more treatments than might otherwise be needed, as well as raise the rates that the "deep pockets" can afford.
Any third-party payer system is going to be subject to this, with the additional "bonus" that a government-only system will stifle new research and development by reducing the profit motive for private companies to do further research.
The basic question is this: does "... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" mean that government must provide the means for those or that government must not hinder them while ensuring that all citizens have an equal chance for them?
If you say that government must provide the means, then you must say that not only must government provide free life-saving medical treatments, but must also provide food and shelter at no cost. This can be extended to cover anything that can be tied to the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
I do not accept that government must provide the means, but only that it must ensure that I am not denied "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by it (the government) or anyone else. Just as doctors take an oath that states "first, do no harm", I feel that all people should abide by the same and that it is the role of government to enforce sanctions when that rule is breached.
Tease,
John Stossel has a similar anecdote except this was a woman whose life saving surgery was determined to be elective by her government (Canada) - she came to the US and paid for the procedure herself because she would have died in Canada.
You can watch it here: http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/...
Udde,
So basically your idea is that the constitution should mean whatever you want it to mean?
That seems a bit risky. Times do change and what people think may be favorable now may be bad in the future, but that doesn't mean that what we may think is actually good only that opinions change. The bedrock of our law SHOULD NOT change so easily. It should be simple and logically consistent throughout the ages. If opinions do change severely we have a mechanism for changing that bedrock its called an amendment.
But you don't want to do amendments you want a living constitution. You want the importance and significance of a supreme and unwavering law so you can point to it and say "YES THAT IS A RIGHT OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS SO" but you want that law to waver with your personal opinion as it flip flops across time. That is simply nonsense.
uddeboda, I sincerely hope that you are no longer a US citizen and are not eligble to vote here. The principles that our nation was founded upon are as valid today as they were then. You appear to be quite happy with Sweden. If it is the case that you have chosen to give up your US citizenship, please STFU.
"But you don't want to do amendments you want a living constitution."
That's what a Constitution is supposed to be - a living document. Thomas Jefferson himself argued that the Constitution should be rewritten every generation so that the current citizenry would not be wedded to the ideologies of the past.
But to you, it's stone dead. What it says is all there is - no more, no less. That turns it into a "suicide pact".
Health care in the 18th century was basically "we'll make you comfortable and then hope you don't die". No antibiotics. No anesthesia. Not even sterile conditions for surgery. So of course the Constitution wouldn't say anything about it because IT DIDN'T EXIST.
Our Founding Fathers were very smart men. But at the end, they were just men who were doing the best they could with what they had.
I understand the plight of people needing health care and I am sympathetic to it. That doesn't mean it's my responsibility to fund it.
The founding fathers could no more have conceived of modern healthcare than they could have conceived of travel by jet aircraft. Keep in mind that George Washington died as a result of complications from excessive bloodletting -- that was state of the art "medicine" in the late 18th century. The genius of our Constitution is that it established a system that was intended to continually evolve.
The United States has provided free public education since at least the late 1800s. I hope that we can all agree that our country has benefitted from having all of our citizens receive a basic education.
We provide attorneys to indigent criminal defendants. By so doing, we have ensured that the rule of law applies to everyone -- not just those fortunate enough to afford private counsel.
These are two examples of how "positive" rights (as Patrick would characterize them) have strengthened our country as a whole. Universal healthcare is a logical (indeed, inevitable) step in the evolution of our society, and it is something that will ultimately benefit all of us.
The Constitution doesn't mention a lot of things that we take for granted today, yet the principles remain just as sound. The 1st Ammendment is a prime example of this. Though print was the only mass media available at the time, the logic behind the 1st Ammendment has carried forward to cover radio, television and now the web without changes or additions being made to the text.
The whole concept of "health care" has changed radically since then. It is only recently that the primary concern about longterm illness has changed from being the loss of income to the cost of the treatments. Again, I say that the availability of third-party health insurance has been a driving force behind this.
Doug,
Rewriting the constitution is different than making up whatever you want it to be without actually rewriting it. You want the power of law set in stone without having to set it in stone so you can change it on a whim. We might as well have a king.
Thomas Jefferson also suggested we should have a rebellion every so often and maybe one day we will have it out.
Finally, even with what meager provisions our founding fathers and ancestors had they were not making it a requirement that government provide you health care. I find it absurd that we have become 300 times wealthier over the course of the last 200 years and that we demand more and more government. Our lives are MUCH better now than they ever have been in any point in history. If there ever was an argument for government providing for people it would have been during the times of extreme famine, poverty and death that have long passed into the pages of our history books.
"These are two examples of how "positive" rights (as Patrick would characterize them) have strengthened our country as a whole. Universal healthcare is a logical (indeed, inevitable) step in the evolution of our society, and it is something that will ultimately benefit all of us."
It is nothing of the sort - you advocate a system of immorality and inhumanity as government decides who is granted greater rights than all others. You advocate a system of violence and coercion and the demonizing of the individual in the hopes of subverting its will to that of the states. It is a perversion of our constitution and a regression of philosophical thought and good republican government. If you want the individual to serve the state may I suggest you go find yourself a king and leave the rest of us alone.
Also the provision of an attorney is not a positive right it is an insurance of negative rights. The government is insuring that it cannot take away your right to life, liberty and law by a complex system of laws by providing you with defense if you cannot afford one. This is a legitimate use of government power.
Government creates laws that it can use to harm you. But by our laws it must ensure that it protects you from bad laws (And bad people). Government writes these laws it does not give you cancer, afflict you with obesity, or give you a genetic code with a more natural disposition to disease.
So, let me see if I have this right -- advocates of universal healthcare are immoral, inhumane, violent, coercive, constitution perverting, philosophically regressive, anti-republican monarchists?
I'm glad to see that we're letting ideas speak for themselves and not resorting to name-calling.
How else would you describe putting a gun to someone's head and forcing to them to give up their welfare so that another person might enjoy it?
I think immoral, violence, and coercive are apt descriptions. I also think the idea of subverting the individuals will to the state or some "greater good" as a regressive and perverted philosophy. And I really don't see how these ancient ideas are new and progressive when they are on par with the ideas of kings and pharaohs.
"I understand the plight of people needing health care and I am sympathetic to it. That doesn't mean it's my responsibility to fund it."
That's not sympathy. That's pity. And I don't want your pity, sir.
Also this, "Government creates laws that it can use to harm you. But by our laws it must ensure that it protects you from bad laws (And bad people). Government writes these laws it does not give you cancer, afflict you with obesity, or give you a genetic code with a more natural disposition to disease."
was a pretty darn good counter point - so yes, I'm letting the ideas speak for themselves...
"That's pity. And I don't want your pity, sir."
Doug, that was an impolite remark to someone you don't even know. How do you know he is not sympathetic? You can't read minds.
Life, Liberty and Persuit of Happiness. Covernment cannot unjustly take my life from me (I have not commited a capitol crime). Liberty, government should not unjustly take my freedom or property from me (as in income taxes to fund social programs). Persuit of Happiness. Paying taxes do not make me happy. Having nice things which I have honestly earned make me happy. Having a nice home makes me happy. Having the money to take a nice vacation makes me happy. Paying the doctor bill of someone who I may care nothing about makes me quite unhappy as I would prefer to use the money for a vacation. I'm not sure why liberals have such a difficult time comprehending that.
It should be illegal to have government health care because it violates the Constitution.
Uddeboda, you don't live in this country but I know you follow the news. Let me explain my position on this. You say just a few % like it's no big deal. When you add the bank bailouts that are funded by taxpayers, the mortgage bailouts, the cap & trade energy taxes, new regulations in the works just to make your home green enough to sell, the ridiculous stimulus plan, and there's another stimulus (act II) on the way, this administration is killing us and taxing us to death. We need to stand our ground on every single nickel we can hang onto as American taxpayers. Don't you understand that we are in fear of what this administration is costing us? Do you know what it's like to be terrified of every new idea because we know we'll be paying for it? So yes, I am saying no I don't want my taxes raised another few %. I will say defiantly no to any new increase in taxes I don't care what it's for. Our government is raping the working people in this country.
Udde,
I was under the impression that you might have been a US citizen at one point in time, thank you for the correction. In light of that, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe you are sadly mistaken. Though you may have lived here in the past (if I remember your other postings correctly), you apparently did not appreciate the level of individual freedom and liberty we enjoy. Clearly, you believe that every human being on earth owes you an existence if you are incapable (or unwilling) to provide it for yourself.
Someone please explain how a government sponsored health plan would violate the Constitution. References to Article and Section numbers would be appreciated.
I'd also like to hear how a government sponsored health plan is in any way different from a state-sponsored education system. Aren't we all paying taxes at some point in our lives to put someone else's kids through school?
Emt,
The burden of proof is on you, not us. You see, the federal government is limited, by our constitution to those powers enumerated to it. It was not granted the power to create universal healthcare. Now I will grant you that our courts screw up on this part of the constitution quiet frequently, but it is up to you to prove that the government has the power to do something it was not given the power to do.
As others have mentioned, the myopic cons will just have to learn the hard way on this subject. They do not care about anyone other than themselves. Forget the party of NO. More like, the party of ME.
Rather than being allowed to die with some dignity, my mother was forced to spend the last 14-months of her life fighting her insurance company and filing for bankruptcy. She had insurance. She did things the right way. She paid her premium some 20+ years straight on time without a missed payment. But as soon as she got diagnosed with a major illness - she was now viewed as an unnecessary expense and they proceed to fight every claim, every payment along the way. They knew she was dying, but elected to make her life hell.
Insurance companies are the SCUM OF THE EARTH. And if you do not know that yet...your time will come. When it does...you are going to be the first in line complaining about the system like everyone else is now.
America is the only civilized country that does not implement a social healthcare model. So what does that say about those who argue against adopting such a model here in America?
Uncivilized, perhaps?
Emthree,
There are many people that take issue with funding education for other people's children. Public education is also not a constitutional right. We are all paying taxes to put someone's kids through school, that doesn't make it right or fair.
Henderson,
You are right a public education is not a constitutional right but that means states can run public ed systems, the federal government cannot.
JahReb,
Perhaps you can tell me what is civilized about coercion and violence? Then ask yourself how far would you go to save your mother?
JahReb, you are addressing a different issue, and in fact are strengthening my statement that government's proper role is to ensure that citizens are not denied basic rights by others, that government should enforce a "do no harm" posture. You're right, companies should perform as agreed to by contract, but that is not an argument for government health care. If anything, it is an argument for open access to the courts with government assistance when one is wronged (and I don't even want to start that topic at this time, far too many implications).
Besides, universal healthcare won't help anyone here. Look at the countries that have it, you will die waiting in line before you ever get an x-ray or a surgery.
Emt,
A case could be made that Amendments 5, 14 (stricture against taking property without due process), and 13 (stricture against involuntary servitude) make it unconstitutional. Takings must be for a public purpose. It could be argued forcefully that taking from one group and giving to another would not qualify as a public purpose. But we are so far down the road of wealth redistribution with other social programs that the arguments would probably be ignored by the courts.
Health care does differ from education. All children require roughly the same amount of education, and the amount is unrelated to choices they made in their lives. Not so with health care. People have widely varying needs for health care, and many have needs because of choices they've made. Moral hazard comes into play with "free" health care (meaning your health care at my expense). If people are free from the consequences of risky behaviors, they are more likely to engage in those behaviors. Not so with education.
patrick's arguments are right on point.
forcing ME to pay for YOUR healthcare is directly infringing on MY rights to life, liberty, and MY pursuit of happiness.
how has it become fair that the fruits of my labor can be seized at confiscatory rates to pay for the social "fairness" doctrines of our current administration?
why should I pay for the healthcare costs of someone who decides to smoke, drink and/or eat to excess? or CHOOSES to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet and sustains a traumatic injury requiring a lifetime of expensive care?
as public education has been mentioned here, look at how poorly our public school system is ranked in the modern world. yet another example of how grossly inept and inefficient the government manages our public money. any yet some of u TRULY BELIEVE that the government will magically do a wonderful fair job managing our healthcare.
The US Constitution says whatever 9 persons say it is.
If they say that health care is a right then it is a right.
If they say that the moon is made out cheese then we all have to say the moon is made out of cheese.
The rule of law has been substituted with the chaos of law a long time ago.
Just look at Roe v. Wade, they completely made up new rights out of thin air and wrote new sections to their vitural version of the Constitution.
There are nine kings or queens...appointed to life and can only be removed by impeachment.
SgtRock,
It only takes five.
Furthermore joe, our loyal opposition on this issue has the idea that they can compel compassion. To some extreme, they believe that they must compel compassion on the idea that humans are all evil (except themselves).
By definition you cannot force someone to be compassionate just as you cannot make someone volunteer their time or money. If you force someone to volunteer, they are not longer volunteering. Volunteering is about doing something under your own volition. Just Compassion is a feeling of caring for others - it's a voluntary feeling which means it cannot be compelled.
Lets think of this in a different way. In some countries women must cover their bodies head to toe. The religious idea is to compel women to be modest. The punishment for failing to cover oneself head to toe is severe beatings or maybe death.
So ask yourself, is a woman who lives under such a system truly modest? Are you modest because your option is A) Cover oneself head to toe or B) Die? Or would you be modest if you lived a free society where your option was to A) Cover yourself head to toe or B) Not cover yourself head to toe?
Clearly, a woman could ONLY be considered modest if she actually had a voluntary choice (no threat of violence for making the 'wrong' choice).
Volunteering, compassion, feeling good about helping others are all wonderful things. But this does not occur under a system of violent coercion and that is exactly what universal healthcare is.
Wanting universal healthcare does not making you a compassionate, caring or a civilized human being. If you want compassion donate your time and money to help others.
kinda like being "ordered to volunteer."
"Wanting universal healthcare does not making you a compassionate, caring or a civilized human being. If you want compassion donate your time and money to help others."
And if you don't, what happens then? Should the people who need help just go around BEGGING for it?
I love this - you're all basically making the "bootstrap" argument. Even to people who don't have boots.
It's basically "Aw, gee that's terrible. Well, good luck to ya."
That's pity - I'll feel sorry for you, but I won't lift a finger to help. And I'm sick of pity - I've had my fill of pity.
http://freedomchannel.blogspot.com/2007/...
Good video on what economic freedom does for society.
Doug,
The highest income tax bracket in the US is 35%, the US also has one of the highest corporate income tax rates among OECD countries. Americans also happen to be the biggest givers of money to charity in the world - and that is with excluding religious based charities.
So are you trying to tell me that if government taxed less and people had even MORE income that they would give even less to charity?
I think you believe that everyone is evil and without good people like yourself to whip them good and hard everything will go to hell in a hand basket. I've got news for you, people are inherently good and they don't need people like you dictating to them how to live their life.
Douglas,
I do feel pity, and it's not that I don't want to help people. I do help plenty of people. The truth is that we all have our problems in life. Yours might be healthcare, someone else's might be joblessness, some of us have children to take care of, some people have lost all of their savings. The bottom line is that we all have our share of problems, why should yours be shouldered by the rest of us? Nobody is helping me with my problems, I don't know why you feel that your issues are more important than anyone else's.
Gibbons says: "Furthermore joe, our loyal opposition on this issue has the idea that they can compel compassion. To some extreme, they believe that they must compel compassion on the idea that humans are all evil (except themselves)."
The Founders were omniscient and infallible. That's why they didn't put "Compassion" in the Constitution. They realized if they did, there could never be a "Republican Party".
On the subject of compassion:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/displ...
Brooks comes to some interesting conclusions. Unfortunately, I am not able to find a more recent study. A google search for "charitable donations political affiliation" gives a number of articles and blog posts that do contain some actual information and not just opinion but almost all of them refer to Brooks as the source.
Being non-religious myself, I am most likely to be called a selfish SOB, but I do in fact help causes I consider worthy (which includes the ACLU). However, it is almost always the case that I must devote my resources to my family members (both grown and those at home) before I can help others.
Stan,
"The Founders were omniscient and infallible."
No they werent omniscient and infallible, and that is why they didn't legislate compassion, attempt to direct an economy, or use government to provide for anyones welfare.
No one is omniscient and infallible so why do you want to treat government, which is run by fallible and limited humans, as something which can solve every problem?
"I understand the plight of people needing health care and I am sympathetic to it. That doesn't mean it's my responsibility to fund it."
Henderson: Is there a doctor I can go to that will accept your sympathy as payment for my medical problems?
Besides, universal healthcare won't help anyone here. Look at the countries that have it, you will die waiting in line before you ever get an x-ray or a surgery.
Henderson: EVERY OTHER COUNTRY has universal healthcare. Didn't you hear? It was in all the papers. You buy into that waiting in line BS put out by your local lobbyist?
The Constitution doesn't mention environmental protection, but I think Mr. McCord and Gibbons would frown on their air smelling like Pitsburgh's once did, or if the tailings from local mining were dumped in the river where their family went every day to get water, and since there were no sewers back then, there is no Constitutional authority to deal with human waste or provide water reclamation or standards. Where does the FDA get its mandate? But without it, China would not be the only ones dispensing poisonous drugs. The nasty old Government also assumed control of the skies. Jefferson didn't think to require the Feds to have jurisdiction of air traffic and of the craft that ply the skies. Where does the Federal Government get the right to regulate the airwaves, to assign frequencies, to rent portions of it while making certain a naughty word is unspoken and a titillating picture is unshown? You like that the feds have the authority to stop you from picking a leaf, burning it and inhaling the smoke? Show me where it even infers that power in the Constitution.
The Constitution is not the Bible. It is not a Sacred Document handed down by an infallible Committee of Deities.
Like it or not gentlemen, you live in a society and you benefit from the work of everyone around you and from the giants and little people who came before you. As a current member of that society you have obligations. It's clear your parents never explained that to you (maybe you were an only child so sharing was never an issue), therefore we have to do it now. Not everyone has a voice like Sinatra, a brain like Einstein, or the strength of a Sampson. Likewise, God didn't make everyone equally beautiful, tall, or ... compassionate. So the rest of us must insist that you hold up your end of the load, even if you cannot understand why it's any of your business.
"Nobody is helping me with my problems, I don't know why you feel that your issues are more important than anyone else's."
I'M NOT ASKING FOR A HANDOUT! I'm asking for a fair shake - in the profit-driven health care industry, I (and tens of thousands just like me) will never get a fair shake. We get denied coverage, we pay higher premiums because of conditions that were the result of genetics and not lifestyle, and we spend the rest of our lives wondering if the next medical crisis will be beyond our ability to afford.
But to an insurance company, I'm just another faceless, soulless number on a ledger sheet. And if I die, so what? Plenty more numbers on that sheet.
I didn't choose to become chronically ill. My friend who got cancer at age 3 didn't choose that. But you want to punish us for decisions beyond our control because...actually, I don't know why you want to but it sure sounds like you do.
I've done everything right - I've worked hard, gotten an education. I try to live right. I'm not a saint, but the idea that I'm just lazy and looking to sponge off others is wrong.
And henderson - you already pay for people like me. How do you think hospitals cover expenses for uninsured patients who can't afford to pay the bills? They pass them on to insured ones. Whose insurance companies then raise premiums on all of their customers in order to balance their books.
"The nasty old Government also assumed control of the skies. Jefferson didn't think to require the Feds to have jurisdiction of air traffic and of the craft that ply the skies."
Economic understanding of their day (and today) understands that there is a legitimate need for government to regulate public goods - non excludable non rivaled. Otherwise you have a tragedy of the commons -- destruction from over use (which is exactly what will happen with universal healthcare). The air happens to be one of those things, not exactly a condemnation of limited government. Though I dare say we have the technology for the private sector to more than handle this responsibility.
"Where does the Federal Government get the right to regulate the airwaves, to assign frequencies, to rent portions of it while making certain a naughty word is unspoken and a titillating picture is unshown?"
It probably shouldn't regulate the airwaves because they are rivalrous, cable is both excludable and rivalrous so there is even less a case for government regulation. They should not be regulating the speech on the airwaves either, in movies, or video games. That is (or was supposed to be) prohibited by the first amendment.
"You like that the feds have the authority to stop you from picking a leaf, burning it and inhaling the smoke? Show me where it even infers that power in the Constitution."
It shouldn't, war on drugs is not only a waste of money and failing at every turn but it is unconstitutional. Government has no more right to stop someone from harming their own body than they have a right to put a gun to my head and make me pay to save someone else.
"Not everyone has a voice like Sinatra, a brain like Einstein, or the strength of a Sampson. Likewise, God didn't make everyone equally beautiful, tall, or ... compassionate."
So basically you've given all the good reasons why government can never legislate equality in this way. We can have equality before the law but not equality of outcome. Yet you still try".
"So the rest of us must insist that you hold up your end of the load, even if you cannot understand why it's any of your business."
Insist is a weak word, you want to use the threat of violence to compel people to do things you deem good. But this doesn't make you compassionate only barbaric. Whereas I would see a country where humans cooperated through voluntary actions you would use force and violence to compel them to do things you like. And the only real reason you feel this way is because you are an uncaring elitist who thinks all humans, except yourself, are evil.
Doug,
"But to an insurance company, I'm just another faceless, soulless number on a ledger sheet. And if I die, so what? Plenty more numbers on that sheet."
And you think government will treat you better?
Doug, buddy, pal, friend. The US government just spent over a trillion dollars bailing out big fat corporate cats, how much did they put into your social security account...yeah our social security NUMBER.
We are numbers to the government too. Just because people work for the government doesn't mean it suddenly becomes altruistic, caring, and great.
Wayne:
No other country has our constitution. Should we abandon that, too?
StanG:
So glad you mentioned all those things. Happy to take them one at a time:
Environmental impact: taking for public purpose
Water reclamation: public safety
Air traffic: public safety
Airwaves: no discernible public purpose or safety consideration; deregulate it
Marijuana: see the 18th Amendment (repealed by the 19th); same rationale, ie, legalize it
As for my obligations as a member of society: My obligations to society are to abide by its laws. Other than that, I am a free person. No individual or group has a claim on my effort or my ability. This is America, not the USSR.
Wayne, you make the mistake of thinking I'm trying to fund your healthcare with my sympathy. I'm not, I'm just saying I'm sorry and I feel badly.
Douglas, I'm well aware of the fact that my costs go up to cover people without ins. I'm not a terrible person for being sick and tired of the government stealing my money. We aren't just talking about healthcare, we are talking about bailing out banks, AIG, cap & trade lightswitch tax, the cost of converting our homes to green energy just to be able to sell them, Stimulus part 1, stimulus part 2, etc.
I'm sorry, I am tired of people taking my money and creating massive debt for our children and grandchildren. I'm sorry you have no insurance. I'm not trying to punish you, but you can't squeeze milk from a turnip and I'm tired of fighting for my money.
If these bleeding hearts stay in office much longer,cost will increase! With there lobbing tactics by way of padding my pocket on the way up! Why the hell do you think it cost 12 bucks for one asprin while your in the hospital?Pretty soon its gonna be a right to die. Then there will prob be a tax by then too!
henderson
couldn't have said it better myself.
it's sad what this country is being turned into. so much for the land of opportunity, where u actually have a chance to work hard, take risks, and reap the benefits of your labor. i really worry that my children will be left with nothing but debt from our out of control government.
"I'm not trying to punish you, but you can't squeeze milk from a turnip and I'm tired of fighting for my money."
And I'm tired of being told that people are sympathetic, but that there's nothing they can do. Tired of being told to be patient, that things will get better. Tired of being told that I should just be happy to be alive.
This is a fight worth fighting.
"where u actually have a chance to work hard, take risks, and reap the benefits of your labor."
I work hard, and take risks. But the game is rigged - no matter how hard I work, or how many risks I take, I'll never have the benefit of health insurance if we keep on with this system.
Stan G. said: "So the rest of us must insist that you hold up your end of the load, even if you cannot understand why it's any of your business."
As one of the rest, meaning that I am a productive member of society who pays taxes and does not receive any form of welfare, I insist that when you can no longer function in society that you remove yourself from it. That is the logical conclusion to be drawn from your statements. You are advocating the society that was depicted in the movie "Soylent Green" which in turn was based on the book "More Room, More Room!".
Douglas, I umderstand your position and don't blame you for pushing for universal healthcare.
Now please understand my position instead of telling me that it's my responsibility to help pay for your healthcare.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/134575.h...
"But when it comes to health care reform, with every passing day, Obama seems less God and more demagogue, uttering not transcendental truths, but bald-faced lies" writes Shikha Dalmia of Reason Magazine.
hey henderson, constitution dosen't say anything about ak 47's either. what a jerk, you just bring the rats outta the holes to hate everyone. gees louise will you righties go live in mexico. you'll don't give a crap about folks who came before you to improve daily lives of our citizens. probably most of you have 5 deferments like dicky boy.
formervegas, I have no idea what you're even talking about. Put together a cohesive thought and I might respond.
henderson: Are you a Christian?
formervegas
it's called the 2nd amendment.
and please do put together a cohesive thought, your last rant sounds like u just took several huge bong hits before u sat down to stumble out a statement.
Ahh! Phargo, one day you are going to have a miserable life. And calling your insurance man just ain't gonna be the ticket.
I gotta say Phargo, I picture you like that hot Melanie chick on Days of Our Lives...
let's see a rant= guess i'll join you rightwing nuts- i don't care about anyone but myself. what kind of parents do you people have. you know alot of people have been born out of just jerks having sex and not caring about the ends. the kids from these idiots most likely will never have a good chance to become who they could have been, but lets throw them under the bus. if you don't care for your fellow man, shame on you if yoyu think your religious. rant, rant.
former, you are actually coming close to the root of the problem overall. That is, too many people reproduce without taking responsibility for the consequences. Personally, I would love to see the world's population decrease by at least a third, preferably thru birth-control (this is probably the only thing that present-day China ever got right in principle).
Just imagine the impact this would have on whatever man-made climate change exists, just for starters. The downside is that the ponzi schemes known as Social Security and Medicare would be in big trouble for a while without new suckers to pay into them.
"Now please understand my position instead of telling me that it's my responsibility to help pay for your healthcare."
How many times must I say I don't want a handout before it sinks in?
There is a DIFFERENCE between asking for a handout and asking for a fair shake. Please, try to keep that in mind before you tell me to be "understanding".
DD, I have no problem whatsoever with you getting a fair shake, providing you are talking about having an insurance company perform as agreed to in a timely fashion. It is the proper role of government to see to it that contracts are enforcable.
But this is an entirely different claim than the one that says the government must provide healthcare to someone who would not otherwise have it.
Why is it that those on the conservative Christian right are so against doing what Christ himself commissioned them to do? To feed the poor, heal the sick, and give away everything to help the needy?
Is the Bible above our constitution? Is your faith ONLY in practice on select Biblical standards? It is not okay to abort babies, but it is okay to allow others to die from illness due to lack of healthcare?
Maybe we should set up colonies for the sick and dying that have no insurance so that they can be kept out of view and not ruin the neighborhood or cause any transfer of illness, just like they did with the lepers?
Isn't the Bible a living document? Isn't God, the God you worship, a living being? Did He make a mistake when He gave the orders to love your neighbor as you do yourself?
Maybe the church should be the providers of healthcare, social services, and be held accountable for what Jesus commissioned them to do?
IF the church (all of the churches) were doing what was required of them, the government would never have to provide one thin dime to any social service.
But...what do I know? I'm a Democrat, right?
All of you worried about the government taking YOUR money and paying for someone else's healthcare...
Was it better spent in Iraq? I DESPISE the fact that MY money was taken and spent to kill Americans and Iraqis, based on a lie.
I DESPISE the fact that MY money was taken and given to the greedy ba$tard$ on Wall Street and the banking industry.
I DESPISE the fact that the lobbyists buy the Republican vote so easily.
So, I feel your pain about healthcare. BUT, do not call yourself a Christian, and then NOT take care of all of the social services for this country's people, which is a BASIC tenet of your faith.
"It is the proper role of government to see to it that contracts are enforcable."
Okay, so in order for this to work I would have to get private insurance...which I can't because I have a pre-existing condition...so I could never meet that standard because it's a Catch-22.
In other words, you just told me to go shuffle off and die. You just cloaked it in prettier words.
You know what, I quit. It isn't worth it anymore. I'm tired of dealing with people who treat me like a leper, or are sociopathic enough to say "Well, we all gotta go sometime."
Believe what you want - but I hope to God that no one you love ever gets seriously ill. Because then you'll see EXACTLY how perverse our greed-driven health care system is.
Health insurance isn't.
"Okay, so in order for this to work I would have to get private insurance...which I can't because I have a pre-existing condition...so I could never meet that standard because it's a Catch-22."
your preexisting condition problem wouldn't be a problem if government hadn't of been screwing around with the health care market. Period.
Transplant,
Do you understand the difference between volunteerism and force? Do you understand that compassion, virtue, and morality cannot be legislated?
"your preexisting condition problem wouldn't be a problem if government hadn't of been screwing around with the health care market."
Patrick, that is bar none the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard you say.
Private insurers don't want people like me because we cost more in treatment than they could ever recoup in premiums. To date, I have had to have treatments and procedures that have cost insurers over $1 million dollars in total expenses (this was when I did have private insurance).
Insurers maximize profit by squeezing out the high-risk, low-return patients. That's how they do their business - it's that vaunted "free market" you always laud.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
DD, I owe you an appology. I had you confused with JahReb who related a story concerning his mother's fight with the insurance industry.
Transplanted, I don't think anyone in this thread, on either side, has referenced being a believer in any faith or a member of a church. I certainly have not, and will tell you now that I am not such. In fact, I would automatically reject any argument based on a religious duty as unconstitutional.
Doug it has everything to do with the government but you are so dogmatic about this you have lost all rationality.
1) Governments treatment of health insurance as a taxable benefit means
A) health insurance is provided as a benefit of having a job
B) there are lots of people now with health insurance.
Health insurance is problematic for a big reason
A) Its a third party payer system and that means
B) Consumers don't care about price and sellers don't care about economizing and that means
C) health care costs grow considerably faster than inflation.
On top of this government restricts competition for the provision of not just health care but health insurance - also increasing the cost.
They also add in mandates - increasing the cost.
Finally the fact that you as an individual never had an incentive or the ability to keep coverage from one state to the next or one job to the next meant that any illness previously discovered on the old insurance became a preexisting condition on the new insurance.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. You've been screwed by the incentives, rules and regulations created by the government - and also by nature itself, but that can't be helped.
Douglas,
what exactly is your illness? you've referred to it scores of times in multiple discussions as a means of trumping other arguments and laying claim to the moral high ground.
in the interest of full disclosure, many of us would be interested in knowing what exactly your diagnosis is that makes you so totally uninsurable.
"Insurers maximize profit by squeezing out the high-risk, low-return patients. That's how they do their business - it's that vaunted "free market" you always laud."
They don't squeeze out high risk people that is not how the system works. If you have insurance and go from low risk to high risk the deal is the insurance company takes care of you.
If you switch policies that condition becomes pre-existing, thus insurance companies will not take you. This is simple economics. It is NOT FAIR for you, as a high risk person to go and join a risk pool and force others to subsidize you from the start. The insurance company would have to raise rates on everyone else just to accept you.
If you wanted fairness you would NOT be advocating that other people be forced to take care of you. You would be advocating for an equitable system that does not create perverse incentives like the one OUR GOVERNMENT has created.
just an average joe,
End Stage Renal Disease - total kidney failure as a result of genetic anomaly. As in dialysis and transplant. Look it up - the medication alone costs $3,000 a month to keep me from ending up BACK on dialysis.
Patrick,
"If you have insurance and go from low risk to high risk the deal is the insurance company takes care of you."
Unless they decide not too. Insurance companies admit that they drop people who go from low risk to high risk. They testified before Congress that they do this. It was in all the papers.
"If you switch policies that condition becomes pre-existing, thus insurance companies will not take you."
And that's the problem. I lost my job and couldn't afford COBRA coverage, so now because in your mind it would be unfair to make others subsidize me I have to accept that I'm forever barred from getting manageable coverage? For something THAT WASN'T MY FAULT?
Here is another way the government has screwed you. You can't buy a transplant. You have to hope for someone to voluntarily give you one and that is hard to do.
now if insurance companies drop people they have to have a good reason because they have contracts and can face billions in losses in the courts. So now go and show me these articles that say they drop people on a whim.
and yes, that is the freaking problem You lose your job YOU LOSE YOUR COVERAGE. Health insurance SHOULD NOT BE part of your job you should be able to keep it from job to job or state to state but GOVERNMENT RULES, REGULATIONS, and INCENTIVES prevent this.
and look we even have a forceful government program for people like you...why aren't you on it?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Stage_Renal_Disease_(US_Federal_Program)
Patrick,
Because that only lasts for as long as you are on dialysis. Once you get a transplant, it expires after 36 months. I have less than 1 year remaining.
As for the article:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-re...
"It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.
"No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact," said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. "There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact."
The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California -- were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.
But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle."
patrick, how dare you ask me such a stupid question, as though you have some sort of intellectual superiority.
I repeat, IF the Christians did what Christians were commissioned to do by their God, there would be no need for social services run by the government. But since they choose to selectively obey one of God's laws and not another, the work of their faith is not being done.
It's not a question of being constitutional or not, boftx. It's a question of people living up to the standards of the religion they profess, or stop calling themselves Christians in name without the work that is to be done. The Apostle James stated that faith without works is dead.
There are millions of Christians in this country. There are MEGAchurches that collect millions of dollars, all untaxed. This money should be going to help the poor, feed the hungry, provide medical care for the sick.
IF the church and all of the Christians were to do what their faith demands of them, there would no one in need for anything in the way of food, shelter, or medical attention.
IF Christian churches required full participation in all aspects of the faith, and/or the Christian congregants insisted on the church giving to the welfare of the people, the sudden rise in Atheists and/or closing of churches would be astounding.
I suggest that the money to pay for social services should come from the churches being taxed for not doing as their faith requires.
Douglas,
I do agree our system is less than perfect, and I would fully support well designed changes / additions to our health care system to see that people like yourself are not left completely high and dry.
but that is not what our current administration is trying to do. they are trying to completely change the fundamentals of health care in this country, by following models which are already failing in other countries. and please do not try to tell me we do NOT have the finest health care in the world. u don't hear about US citizens flying to Canada for innovative state of the art health care and life saving surgeries.
just as I would have supported initiatives by the government which would have spurred real job creation by the private sector. not this unprecedented growth of government spending, power and influence we are getting, with all the inefficiencies inherent in government.
it all boils down to: do u really, truly believe that the government, and the men who run it, are truly committed to only "helping" their fellow countrymen? and NOT interested in their own self interests and power?
it is ALWAYS about self interests and power. that is what drives us as human beings (and no I'm not discounting good will, caring for our fellow man, and karma). it's not pretty, but it is a basic truth of the human experience.
THAT is precisely why socialism has failed as an economic model everywhere it has been fully applied. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". sounds great. but it DOESN'T WORK!!! bottom line is, the capable will quickly learn NOT to put forth full effort if there is no incentive, and the lazy among us (and please don't deny their existence) will just leech off the system and contribute nothing.
as in our prior discussion, you REALLY believe that u will get our best and brightest to attend 8 years of college and med school, then 3-8 years of residency, take on crushing debt, and not have any substantial earnings until they are in their thirties, if they are only going to get paid $60k per year????
"and please do not try to tell me we do NOT have the finest health care in the world."
We don't. I'm living proof of that, sir.
And if you want other examples, I can give you a boatload.
no sir, u are not. u are living proof that there are problems in our system which need to be fixed.
it doesn't change the fact that the free market system in our country is what drives our health care system to develop and create new drugs, technologies and modalities and treatment and bring them to market. drugs, technologies and modalities which are often NOT AVAILABLE in any other country, until they copy us, WITHOUT having paid for the development of these innovations.
without the profit motive which u find so repugnant, innovation and development will STAGNATE.
"without the profit motive which u find so repugnant, innovation and development will STAGNATE."
You know what, forget it. It isn't worth the aggravation anymore.
Half the people here see me as a sponge. The other half want "solutions" that are unworkable or impractical.
I'm wasting my breath, so maybe I should just stop talking.
DD, I would argue that you, and others in this thread (myself included) are in fact living proof that we DO have the finest health care (meaning the finest medical technology) in the world. The fact that you are still alive, and are treatable (and I do not mean to minimize the financial aspect) says this. Not that long ago you would not have been able to find an effective treatment, without regard to payment for it. In my own case, I have had two major heart attacks and am alive because inserting a stent is a routine procedure now, along with a triple bypass.
No, the level of our medical knowledge is among the best if not THE best in the world.
Patrick has restated the same points I did at the start that it is the third-party payer model that is at the heart of the problem. There are indeed inequities in our current style of coverage, but government control is not the answer. One has only to look at the VA system to see what would result. Any vet can tell you that free government medical care is not as good a deal as you would think. If you ever reject the treatment they prescribe, and go outside the system for something better, you are banned for life from any further treatment at a VA facility.
boftx
well said.
and another point on the VA system. the doctors in the VA system provide only a fraction of the QUANTITY of treatment that a doctor in the free civilian world provides. this is fact.
why u ask? because there is NO INCENTIVE for the providers in the VA health care system to work as hard or efficiently as the providers in the civilian free market system. they may argue this is because they are so focused on the quality of care, but this is a phony argument. bottom line, they ain't getting paid to work hard, and they ain't gonna work hard.
human nature.
Liberals, what you're failing to realize is most of America doesn't mind funding healthcare for those who are require medical attention. It is the abuses that you liberals impose on America which is why any socialized healthcare system in America will not become law.
Get rid of the handouts to the illegal immigrants, get rid of welfare abuse, sterilize the baby making machines who don't work, affirmative action, free education to illegal immigrants, stop enabling the free loaders to drain suck us dry and then you can have us pay for your medical needs. To sum it up, enforce the laws we have on the books and by all means, STOP WHINING WHEN THEY ARE ENFOFRCED.
Democrats YOU can't continue to suck us dry; why do you think America is broke? American's aren't taking your foolish spending habits lightly anymore, get use to it!
Doug,
I'm sorry for your condition. Only the lucky ones among us will leave this life without experiencing costly health problems. We have Medicare and Medicaid to take care of people who are retired or disabled. I assume you are disabled. What do those wonderful government programs tell you?
I'm saving my money so that when I go through my health problems, I will be less of a burden on society. Your cohorts on this board agree with you that other people should pay for your health problems. Possibly they would be willing to pay for yours? I suspect, though, that they would be willing only if they could force the rest of us to kick in.
"I assume you are disabled."
I'm not - I'm too "healthy" to qualify for SSI, make too much to qualify for Medicaid, and will run out of the Medicare exemption I have in less than 12 months.
In other words, I'm too "rich" to get help but too poor to get it on my own.
For the record Wayne and transplanted, I am a Christian. As a good Christian I donate more than my fair share of time and money to charitable causes. I give regularly and generously to Meals on Wheels, St. Judes, the Freedom Alliance, a few charities that support our veterans, Habitat for Humanity, the SPCA, Lied Animal Shelter, and CCF just to name a few. Not to mention everytime I swipe my card at the market and they ask me to donate a dollar for prostate cancer, breast cancer, muscular dystrophy, and don't forget my elderly neighbors down the street - I take them food all the time, I send someone over to mow their lawn, I help them trim their trees and bushes, etc. I don't know what your point is, but you would be very hard-pressed to find someone more giving of time and money (I mean percentage of income rather than dollars, I don't make a lot) than I.
So what are you two doing for your fellow man?
Seventy-two per cent of Americans believe heath care needs to fixed. I really get laugh from the preprogrammed idiots of the insurance companies who compare the current plans to Canada and Europes. No one in Canada or Euorpe has ever filed bankruptcy or lost a home because of medical bills. The hidden tax of paying for indigent heath care is huge. On a property owners current property tax bill there are atleast three charges for indigent care,not counting the closed hospitals and facilities that go broke serving indigents.UMC is a fine example. To many of these conservatives just keep puking up the same old lies by the same old people.
henderson: Good job, now take the final step and get behind healthcare for everyone and stop americans from being denied healthcare due to pre-existing conditions, stop people from going bankrupt when a serious illness occurs, (over 50% of those bankruptcies had health insurance) stop the 20,000 needless deaths per year for people who don't have health care, stop the ever increasing rolls of americans who don't have health insurance, (47,000,000 and rising).
Why does my son who lost his job, and of course his health insurance, due to an illness, get a death sentence because he can't get treatment for MS.
You, or someone close to you, may be in this same situation someday and you will regret your stand against healthcare for all.
HEALTHCARE SHOULD NOT BE FOR PROFIT. It's almost criminal.
Doug, just as I thought, they are cancelling policies on people who lied or omitted information. That is part of the contract, you simply cannot lie or omit information.
If the insurance company did cut your policy you still have legal means to pursue, you can sue them and prove you were cut because of other means.
Nevertheless, this does not invalidate any of my other points. If you want affordable healthcare, GOVERNMENT is not the answer. It is really sad to see that you will engage in dogmatic debates without focusing on the underlying issues. Because you dismiss out of hand some really good alternatives it demonstrates to me that you just want socialized medicine you don't want affordable healthcare.
I also hope, that in the future, you will be upfront about your condition and the fact that you are currently on a government program to pay your bills.
Wayne,
Everyone already can get healthcare, what you are trying to suggest is that everyone should have health insurance. Those are two different things.
Your next error is to assume that you can compel compassion, and legislate virtue and morality. You cannot do these things.
Universal healthcare does not make taxpayers moral or compassionate, it makes them taxpayers, nothing more. If you want compassion donate your own time and money to help others.
Wayne,
MS is a death sentence, not the lack of health insurance (which is the fault of government incentives, regulations and rules that I've explained a dozen times on here). MS was caused by nature itself.
The fact that your son lives (and live better and longer than he would have 100 years ago) is a testament to private innovation and the free market YET that is what you blame for your sons condition?
uddeboda, ahhhhh the WHO...
i suppose they must be just as relevant as the UN....
Patrick
I've had enough of your "compassion", and enough of your "free makret solves all" dogma.
The government program expires in less than 12 months. At that point, I am done - I can't go seeking private insurance, and I can't go begging for the kind of help I need. I'll end up back on dialysis or dead.
I'm sick of this - sick of you. And don't message me anymore via e-mail. I don't want to listen to it.
Wayne - Who are you to question my Christianity, then demand that I owe more? I guarantee that I do more with my personal money and my private time for other people than anyone has a right to ask, certainly more than you.You have some strange nerve. I will always spend my dollars and my time helping people, probably more than I should, but I will not succumb to your demands that I should pay for every American, and quite possibly I'm afraid, illegal alien, and others that make poor life choices. I'm not saying that Douglas or your son fall into that category, but the outcome will be the same. You are expecting taxpayers to shoulder the cost of obesity, drugs, smoking, drinking, eating disorders, etc. that we have no control over. Sorry, I don't want to and it's not my responsibility. I am generous to a fault, but not when it comes to socialism, but thanks for being so generous with other peoples' money. Good Luck with your son, and I mean that with all of the sincerity in the world. Life certainly isn't fair and it's extremely unfortunate that bad things happen to good people all the time. Maybe you should try giving more than you ask for, I promise you that many good things come to people that give more than they take. If you began spreading goodwill and giving of yourself, you may very well find yourself meeting someone or some group that can help your son.
As conservatives we have the right to shoot all liberals. The 2nd Amendmend say so. And for practical reasons we can accomplish this too. We have all the guns.
GIT R DONE.
I read some things before that are completly wrong above regarding the Government's power to regulate air, airwaves, envirnoment etc. Someone said that the Federal Government has the power to regulate those things because of "public safety." This assertion is completly false. The Federal Government does not have the police power to regulate anything but the Military, Indian Reservations, Federal Land, Washington DC and the "taxing and spending power". The envirnoment (unless it is federal land, airwaves and air pollution are none of those things, thus it cannot regulate for public safety or welfare. However, under the "commerce clause" the Federal Government may regulate anything that has an impact on interstate commerce. The airwaves impact interstate commerce, air pollution impacts interstate commerce, environmental problems impact interstate commerce, and marijuana is sold and bought across state lines; thus the Federal Government may reguate it as it sees fit.
The states and municipalities have the power, under the 10th amendment, to regulate anything they see fit using the police power. However, under the docrtine of Federalism, a state's or municipality's regulation must not substantially infringe interstate commerce or the right for an American citizen the right of their livlihood.
I do not like Government run mandated health insurance (it's not universal healthcare because Doctors have to treat you under the Hippocratic Oath) but the Federal Government may install it if the Supreme Court agrees that Health insurance has an impact on interstate commerce; i.e., health insurance companies and hospitals in other states treat patients from other states.
It's pretty clear that health care is not a constitutional right, and therefore not something the government is required to provide.
But it's also clear that there's a great deal of support, maybe majority support, to "do something" about it. And the will of the majority will not be denied.
How about linking individual health insurance to tax deductions? Health insurers would be required to send their customers a verification form at the end of year for each person insured; no verification, no individual deduction allowed. Proceeds would go into a pool to address medical claims of the uninsured. Would probably be fairer if tied to a federal flat tax for all income levels so that lower income earners have an incentive to purse medical insurance, and probably couldn't allow for an "opt out" option as too many people would undoubtedly take the short term view and then expect the rest of us to cover their bills if they did fall ill, but might be a more affordable & equitable course than what's being developed in DC now while still addressing the core problem. Would have to be tweaked to provide for some sort of minimum standard, maybe preventive care plus catastrophic care as the minimum. And besides a flat tax as part of the deal, would probably need to address liability caps (in an effort to contain provider insurance costs).
Doug,
"I've had enough of your "compassion", and enough of your "free makret solves all" dogma."
Dogma is more akin to a faith - something that can't be proven. Free markets can work, do work, and have clearly been proven to work.
You aren't interested in this because your end goal is socialism, not actually helping the poor or the needy. If you did care about that you would ask yourself "do my policies work to help others" and then examine the data. The left does not do this. (The right fails to do this on issues like marriage, family values, censorship, and the drug war, but I digress).
Government has made it difficult for you to get health insurance and even a transplant. Yet your solution is not to break down those barriers that put you in this predicament. Your solution is more government.
Reagan your reasoning is flawed for a very simple reason. Our government has decided it can regulate everything already - and it did so by gutting the constitution and things like the commerce clause.
May I suggest reading "How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution" by Richard Epstein a law professor at the University of Chicago.
The only legitimate test for government regulation should be whether or not the good in question is non-excludible and non-rivaled. All other regulation must be limited to enforcing contracts and preventing fraud (so information disclosure rules).
Bust,
Nonsense, the 2nd amendment protects the individuals right to own a gun. The constitution does not allow you, or anyone else to physically harm another (or steal from them). In fact our founders realized that a government should be limited to three basic functions
A) protecting property rights and enforcing contracts
B) defense against foreign aggressors
C) protect the public from physical harm and theft by others
that is Courts, Police, and Military.
No where is anyone granted the power to take another persons life because under negative rights no one is given rights superior to another person.
reagan:
You misquoted me. I said the environment involves public purpose (it affects everyone), so is a legitimate area for government involvement. Airwaves, I said the government should not regulate, nor marijuana. I said water reclamation and air traffic control involve public safety, so are legitimate areas for government involvement.
The Commerce Clause serves as a pretext for big-government politicians and bureaucrats to control more of our economy.
You also said, "Doctors have to treat you under the Hippocratic Oath." Doctors are no longer required to take the Oath.
Haha, for those of you who argue that the Constitution is a " living, breathing document", I hope the insurance defense lawyers use that same argument when defending the breach of contract/bad faith lawsuit brought by one of you libs seeking to enforce the terms of the insurance contract.
Then, I hope the deciding judge is one , appointed by the Kenyan, that believes in ruling not based on the law or the terms of the contract, but on "empathy", as the Kenyan himself said is the basis upon which issues of law should be decided!
Since your contract is fluid and living and breathing, and since maybe the judge will direct his empathy towards the carrier while ignoring the law, won't it be fun when their decision against you is based on those factors?
Btw, same goes for your emplyment contract and the deed to your house. "Living and breathing", people, "living and breathing". Since you can no longer rely on the terms of the deed, as they can be reinterpreed from one day to the next , better get that moving van ready!
Those pesky strict constructionists! Always so consistent with that annoying habit of sticking to the terms of the constitution and contracts. And, no empathy, either!!! How ridiculous to be able to walk into a courtroom, knowing that regardless of your race, class or status, the judge's decision is a foregone conclusion because you either have or don't have the law and statutory authority on your side.
Such boring consistency! Better to have a judiciary where the judge's ruling will be be an exciting roll of the dice, based not on what the law states, but on the fluidity of that "living, breathing document"!
And, of course, "empathy".
"You aren't interested in this because your end goal is socialism, not actually helping the poor or the needy."
MY INTEREST IS STAYING ALIVE WHEN MY INSURANCE RUNS OUT YOU TWIT! HOW HARD IS THAT FOR YOU TO GRASP?
I DON'T WANT TO DIE. I DON'T WANT MY PARENTS TO BURY THEIR SON BECAUSE OF YOUR BELIEF THAT I SHOULD JUST ACCEPT MY FATE.
Doug,
We both know that Sir Patrick of Gibbons is a know-it-all blowhard that is so convinced of his superiority and vast knowledge of how things SHOULD be that he fails to understand the human condition and its frailities.
It would probably take a tragedy such as when he or a loved one is faced with the fate of choosing to live or die based on his "acceptability" of a free-market insurance conglomerate. Maybe then he will understand how dire the condition can be?
What boggles my mind is that all government employees are given TAX funded insurance plans of varying degrees, with our poor military personnel, the elderly and the poor receiving the worst of it. And, the people on the Hill getting the best. Paid for by everyone on this forum.
What is wrong with taxing the churches to pay for healthcare??? It's about time those corrupt organizations put their money where their mouth is.
If all of organizaed religion was doing its job, and not just the single individuals like Henderson, then there would be no need for social services paid for by the government. However, notice how everyone avoids commenting on this topic!
Do not despair, Doug. Do not stress over the ignorance of these sheeple and their inability to comprehend.
Not many people want to die. But you aren't going to die from a lack of health insurance you (and everyone else here) are going to die from natural causes or an accident (there is a 100% change of death for everyone). Death or the threat of death by natural causes is not sufficient warrant to provide universal health care or even consider universal health insurance as some sort of right.
What you want to assert is that you somehow have a freedom from nature itself. You, nor me, or anyone else has a freedom from death by natural causes just as we have no freedom to levitate in defiance of gravity.
Your situation stinks, but it does not give you a right to deprive others from life, liberty and happiness. If you want equitable, fair, and just solutions you really should be using your time and talents to push for less government not more. Government has you're your sad situation worse, not better. Sadly, you've dismissed (out of hand) any alternative to reducing medical costs for you and everyone else in the country.
Transplant,
the fact that you personally attack others and substitute valid counterpoints with flaunts of your self proclaimed mental vastness probably suggests you aren't all that bright - or at least aren't challenged frequently by people who are.
That said, you don't seem to understand a single point I made about morality and compassion. Lets address your logical fallacies.
1) "IF the Christians did what Christians were commissioned to do by their God, there would be no need for social services run by the government"
Which came first trans, the chicken or the egg? If the government takes 1/3rd of our income does that not leave us with less income to help others if we so choose? If government creates welfare programs does that not leave us with less incentive to help others.
Evidence suggests that not only do people give lots of money to help others, but that we would continue to give and probably give a lot more if government ran not a single welfare program. You more than a century ago almost every hospital, library, clinic, museum, symphony hall, and college was built with private money. Today we are considerably wealthy, what is to suggest that we would give less (other than the government takes a lot more of our incomes today)?
2) You fallaciously conflate charity with government coercion. Christians, or anyone else, cannot become compassionate because they support universal healthcare.
If the law of the United States says "You must be baptized and become a believer in Christ or Die" would you suddenly believe in Christ, or would you pretend? In a similar fashion you cannot be compelled to be moral, virtuous, or compassionate just as you cannot be compelled to volunteer your time. In fact, when the courts order you to volunteer your time as punishment they are in fact making you a slave. The definition of volunteering means you are helping under your own volition. Compassion means you care for others -- paying taxes doesn't mean you care. Forcing others to pay taxes doesn't mean you care. Actually getting out their and donating your money and time means you care.
Paying taxes does not make you compassionate, it makes you a taxpayer. I don't see how this is so hard to understand.
3) The difference between you and the modern church is that you are violent. They ask for donations you put a gun to peoples head and demand tribute.
transplanted,
It's interesting that you speak of organized religion doing it's job and providing the necessary socialized services you speak of. Most churches do provide for their people in need. Most churches will pay for medical treatment, pay rent, help with bills, deliver food, etc. for their congregants. You would know that if you attended church. The problem with your theory, is that if you are not churchgoing, and I'm pretty sure Wayne and Douglas are not, how can church will help them? This goes back to what I mentioned before about donating time to working with charities, that might possibly open up new doors for them. You have to give, and network with others that give, to possibly expand your options. Excellent point you made.
"But you aren't going to die from a lack of health insurance you (and everyone else here) are going to die from natural causes"
Cuff that straw man a little harder, Patrick.
Death by natural causes AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INABILITY TO AFFORD CARE is not "natural".
Thanks for the "we all gotta go sometime" speech. I've heard it, and it repulses me because it shows YOUR depraved indifference towards your fellow man.
"The problem with your theory, is that if you are not churchgoing, and I'm pretty sure Wayne and Douglas are not, how can church will help them?"
My parent's church has done all they can. They can't give any more. Neither can my parents or my friends.
And by-the-by, if you even think of saying my illness is somehow a result of not being "spiritual", you might want to rethink it.
What a bunch of daisies! No one in America dies from a lack of healthcare. They die from diseases, self-inflicted wounds caused by ungodly vices and lifestyles, and on occasion, from a quack doctor (vis-a-vis Michael Jackson).
We need healthcare reform, indeed, but a system based on equitable assignment of personal resources. It's called the progressive tax method. ( I can hear the moaning from the folks in Summerlin all the way over here in Henderson).
Death by natural causes is a consequence of nature. The health care is extending your life yet this is what you blame for your troubles.
Your trouble is bad luck with the genetic code and bad government policy.
Stating the obvious makes me indifferent? What nonsense. I think the indifference toward humanity is shown by those who would put a gun to someone's head to make their own life better off. If you support socialized medicine for the purpose of sustaining your life you are that person.
So, how would you solve the health insurance troubles in the U.S.
Douglas, it's really weird that you think I would suggest your illness is because your not spiritual.
I'm just wondering, do you feel like a hypocrite for taking money from a church that you don't attend and whose doctine you don't believe in?
The fact that you always trash Christions and religous people in the Sun, yet have no problem taking their money says a lot about you.
Keep this in mind next time you call anyone a hypocrite.
Dear Sir Patrick,
Whatever your opinion of me is, it is not relevant to my wellbeing or opinion of myself.
Now, you, sir, have missed the point I made. There would be no need for government welfare programs of any kind (hence, no taxing for it) if organized religion did what it claims to believe in. Just because one church here, or one church there does take care of "their" people, is not what I am proposing.
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Let's use that to take care of all of the people of this country. TAX the mega millions of dollars and property owned by ORGANIZED religious organizations to pay for ALL welfare and medical programs!
Organized religious organizations have gotten off scott-free, with no obligations to support the system that provides them the opportunity to be in business. And, if you don't think they are a business, then the Pope isn't Catholic.
Look at all of those religious people writing books, selling tapes, and the like. They AVOID taxes by asking for a "donation" --however, the donation is always a set price. Give me a break. Most of them live oppulent lifestyles at the country's expense, all tax free.
Expand your thinking, maybe just a bit?? There are other ways to provide for a healthcare system than just through the insurance conglomerates that are controlling eligibility, based on cost of care and not need for care.
"The fact that you always trash Christions and religous people in the Sun, yet have no problem taking their money says a lot about you."
Show me where I have "trashed Christians". Quote it, because I think you're lying. In fact, I know you're lying.
uddeboda,
yeah the UN is soooooo relevant.
u probably believe in "starfleet" too!
I am NOT a citizen of the world, I am a citizen of the United States of America.
Transplant,
"There would be no need for government welfare programs of any kind (hence, no taxing for it) if organized religion did what it claims to believe in."
And guess, what, religious charities have been providing for the poor and the sick and so were other people in secular charities. Now we are even wealthier and the government takes considerably more from us and you want them to give even more? You missed the point by a mile. Why would we donate less if we have even more money because the government didn't tax our wealth away?
By the way, you do realize that the non-profit tax free status applies to secular organizations as well and that they help the poor and needy too?
"Most of them live oppulent lifestyles at the country's expense, all tax free."
What you have just asserted is that you somehow have a right to someone else's income. That because someone does not spend their money how you have deemed best the rest of us in the country suffers. This is troubling because your philosophy is extremely elitist.
At any rate we probably should slash all sorts of taxes like the income tax and the corporate income tax. People would have a lot more income to give to charities...if that is how they wanted to spend the money.
"There are other ways to provide for a healthcare system than just through the insurance conglomerates that are controlling eligibility, based on cost of care and not need for care."
Right like more competition, deregulation, health savings accounts. But I should warn you, price is merely a transmitter of information, prices tell us how much something is needed and where it is needed.
The fact that prices are growing significantly faster than inflation has nothing to do with something as simple as corporate greed but everything to do with government management, regulation and rules restricting competition.
Finally, if your goal is to steal from Christians to give to the poor on the grounds that Christians are commanded by god to give to the poor (and you've decided arbitrarily that they are not giving enough) are you also going to stone to death non-believers and adulterers?
This has to be repeated for transplant.
He states
A) God commands Christians to give to the poor and care for the needy.
B) Christians aren't giving to the needy
C) Therefore government must compel them to obey god.
So I must ask transplant,
If the governments job is to compel Christians to do gods will, do you support a government program of stoning to death non-believers, adulterers and others according to the Old Testament?
Healthcare is not a right, social security is not a right, WIC programs are not rights, VA benefits are not rights, medicare and medicaid are not rights... they may be entitlements based upon law but that is different than a right.
Laws can change. Rights are to be preserved under the constitution.
If you feel that the country has a moral obligation to provide health care and laws are passed that support that notion than you are entitled to what the law provides. No more, no less...
If a law is not passed... than no entitlement.
That's how it works in a democracy.
Douglas, you have been espousing anti-religious beliefs here for a long time. I don't have time to go back through all of your comments, but you are not a religious man, and you hold very non-religous beliefs. Do you feel like a hypocrite for taking money from a congregation that you don't attend and whose doctine you don't believe in? You don't have to take it so personally.
transplanted,
Wow! So you want to benefit from Christianity even though you don't believe in it? Yes, this country was founded on Christian principles, yet people are clamoring to have the ten commandments removed from their vision. You need to be a Christian to benefit from a congregation. You don't know where donations go, but Christians tend to take care of other Christians. You can read all about it in the Bible. You can't make the churches of the country responsible to for everyone elses' hedonism and poor life choices any more than you can make taxpayers do it. You see, it's unconstitutional. Join a church or pay your own way user.
"Douglas, you have been espousing anti-religious beliefs here for a long time. I don't have time to go back through all of your comments, but you are not a religious man, and you hold very non-religous beliefs."
That's a load of crap. Seriously, a load of crap. I've actually DEFENDED religion quite a few times around here against people on "my side" who attack it as brainwashing.
For the record, I'm non-denominational. I beleive in a "higher power" - I just don't believe any religion has it right. Religions are creations of MAN, influenced by human prejudices (seriously, take a religious studies course if you don't believe me).
And I do take it personally - you insult me, and you insult the Founders (most of whom were NOT Christians, but rather Deists) who believed that forcing religion down people's throats was wrong. Why do you think we have no religious test to hold public office?
I apologize and stand corrected.
So, do you feel like a hypocrite for taking money from a congregation that you don't attend and whose doctine you don't believe in?
I guess henderson has a different definition of "charity" than the rest of us.
Must have missed that part of the bible where Jesus applied a belief test to those in need of charity.
ksand
it sounds like henderson is and has been a much more charitable person than you could ever hope to be.
your idea of "charity" is forcibly taking from those who YOU believe to "have it better" to redistribute to those that YOU believe to be somehow more "deserving".
Actually ksand, thank you for your interest, you must have missed my earlier post. Let me replay it for you:
I give regularly and generously to Meals on Wheels, St. Judes, the Freedom Alliance, a few charities that support our veterans, Habitat for Humanity, the SPCA, Lied Animal Shelter, and CCF just to name a few. Not to mention everytime I swipe my card at the market and they ask me to donate a dollar for prostate cancer, breast cancer, muscular dystrophy, and don't forget my elderly neighbors down the street - I take them food all the time, I send someone over to mow their lawn, I help them trim their trees and bushes, etc. "
Other than St. Judes and CCF, my money and time go mostly to non-religous organizations that I feel do good work and make a difference. What do you do to help humanity?
I never said I was or was not a member of an organized religious group. I never said anything at all about my faith, and I won't as it is personal and not something I need to publicize.
What I am saying is that EVERY company should share the tax burden, and those taxes coming from the non-profit organizations (religious and secular) would be ideally used to pay for a one-payer healthcare system that makes healthcare available for everyone, as well as other social services.
My argument is that IF the religious organizations were doing everything they could as a collective group, then we would not have many hungry, sick people. Since they cannot work collectively for all of humanity, (Jesus associated with the beggars, sick, dying, tax collectors, prostitutes, etc., and saw no difference based on their lifestyle or income), then, they should share in the governments effort to provide the badly needed services through taxation.
Religious groups enjoy the freedoms of this country; they should share in its burdens for services paid for by taxes!
I have a health savings plan. I give to religious and secular charities as well as individuals, and I have a good insurance policy. HOWEVER, if I should be canceled by the insurance company at their whim and/or be charged an amount I cannot afford, then I would NOT be able to be covered due to pre-existing conditions.
I employ 22 people and pay 50% of their insurance premiums! For the past 15 years the costs of gone from around $25k per year to over $80k per year.
Legislating the insurance companies is about as easy as herding cats due to the crooks known as lobbyists (but that's another topic).
Unless you are paying the bill for health insurance for yourself and others like Doug, STFUp. You have no answers, only wind.
"So, do you feel like a hypocrite for taking money from a congregation that you don't attend and whose doctine you don't believe in?"
No.
My parent's believe in it and attend it, which I'm pretty sure absolves me of any charges of hypocrisy.
"it sounds like henderson is and has been a much more charitable person than you could ever hope to be. your idea of "charity" is forcibly taking from those who YOU believe to "have it better" to redistribute to those that YOU believe to be somehow more "deserving"."
I had no idea joe was psychic and could read my mind. That's fascinating, joe, but not based in any type of reality, nor anything I've written here or any type of personal knowledge of me.
Your curious powers of extrapolation have really gone haywire, buddy.
henderson, your charitable acts aside (which I commend you for, but you miss the big picture), why would anyone feel like a hypocrite for accepting charity? In order to be a hypocrite, their actions would have to, in some way, counter the idea of accepting charity.
Again, you seem to imply some sort of belief-based litmus test for charity. What's next, soup kitchens will start barring nonbelievers from getting a hot meal?
There are some fundamental problems when asking if healthcare is a right. The discussion does not stop with healthcare at that point.
1) If healthcare is a right, then one must ask is having food and shelter also a fundamental right since those are even more important to being alive?
2) If anything is deemed to be a right, then is it necessary for a person to work, or contribute to society in some fashion, to qualify for that right?
Question 2 can be deemed a contradiction in terms since a right is something inherent with existing, but must be asked since many people have a problem with giving others something for nothing at their expense.
A better question might be this: what moral obligations does government have to the citizens? It is eaiser to examine this question if the government was a monarchy or dictatorship as there is only a single entity in charge. But it can still be done when addressing the citizens as the government.
In the interest of spurring rational discussion, I would submit that there can be a difference between a right and a moral obligation and healthcare should be addressed as the latter and not the former. I say this so that healthcare (and by extension food and shelter) can be addressed in the context of being a contract between the government and the citizens. The concept of something being a right implies a one-way flow from the government to the citizen with no reciprical responsiblity being placed upon the citizen.
Let the fun begin.
"my parents believe in it and attend it, which I'm pretty sure absolves me of any charges of hypocrisy"
only if you're 12 and still living with them as a dependent.
otherwise, the rest of us are "pretty sure" that your taking money from a congregation that you don't attend and whose doctrine you don't believe in ABSOLUTELY makes you a hypocrite.
"the rest of us are "pretty sure""
Joe, don't presume to speak for everyone. It's bad form.
Doug, what do you do for your fellow man? Your parents good faith doesn't count. What have you contributed to society, to charity, what do you do for your neighbors, friends, family? We know they've done a lot for you. I'd like to think you deserve it somehow.
ksand, you have no problem questioning my definition of charity, and honestly you're starting to sound like a bit of a user too. What do you do for others? What makes you a good person? What percentage of your time and income to you donate to causes? How many people do you cook for? What do you do for your neighbors?
henderson, I'm going to preempt DD on this one. From an earlier post of his he states that he makes too much to qualify for certain programs. This implies he has a job of some type and therefore contributes to society.
A person's value to society should not be based on donations or community service. Simply holding a job and doing what one can to carry their own load goes a long way in my view.
DD's situation, as he described it, is actually at the heart of this debate.
As an aside, I really think the terminology needs to be changed. What we need is health insurance reform, not healthcare reform. More and more I am beginning to think that health insurance has nothing to do with healthcare.
"ksand, you have no problem questioning my definition of charity, and honestly you're starting to sound like a bit of a user too."
I sound like a bit of a user? How so? Because I think it's patently absurd that someone who devotes so much time to charity such as yourself has the audacity to ask someone to prove they deserve it?
Because you seemingly think some litmus test needs to be applied to determine whether someone is worthy of charity?
"What makes you a good person?"
I try to abide by the whole "judge not, lest ye be judged" thing when it comes to determining whether someone is worthy of charity. Something, apparently, you missed. You have already passed judgment on me, declaring that I sound like a bit of a user too, so I'm confident whatever acts of charity I announce will fall on deaf ears.
DouglasDem is a human being, therefore worthy of charity.
boftx
you've come from the middle and totally nailed the issue again.
I totally agree.
Forget about what a church or congregation can do for the sick. Two bypass operations would drain any church's resources in a New York minute. And a hot meal and a prayer isn't going to unclog anybody's arteries either. We need health care for everyone! HEALTH CARE SHOULD NOT BE FOR PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wake up before an illness turns your life into s#@t also. There was a time when americans were better people.
With all due respect boftx, when people question other peoples' charitable contributions, such as DD and ksand, and insist on charity, it's a very relevant to know that they've done something in their lives to deserve such kindness from others. Say what you will on your own behalf, but preempting is rude.
"With all due respect boftx, when people question other peoples' charitable contributions, such as DD"
Agin, you are confusing me with someone else. I did not question your charitable contributions, because that is not something I am any position to question.
I question the concept of creating a system by which the only alternative for those who cannot afford it on their own (either because it is too costly or barred by business practice) is charity.
"when people question other peoples' charitable contributions, such as DD and ksand, and insist on charity"
I didn't question your contributions, henderson, I questioned your litmus test for determining how people are worthy. There's no need to put words into my mouth, I'm quite capable of expressing myself.
I even said I "commend you" for your contributions, though I find your fanciful boasting about such contributions to be less-than-humble.
But your tactic of "prove you're worthy of living" is uncouth and quite inhumane.
I merely said that most church organizations do provide for their congregation, but you have to be a member. I also pointed out that most of the organizations I donate to are not religous ones.
Wayne, churches don't necessarily "pay" all the costs of surgeries and medical care. They network, they have members that are doctors, anesthesiologists, surgeons, they also have associations with those in the medical field that often assist with costs.
Actually, "prove yourself worthy of living" isn't that bad, depending upon the criteria. The big stumbling block for most people when it comes to the government (which in reality is themselves) paying for services is how to avoid paying for deadbeats. The fact that you buy insurance says you don't mind paying for other people so long as they contribute, too.
This has always been the complaint about welfare, no one wants to pay for someone who they perceive as doing nothing to deserve help. And a distinction must be drawn between those who won't do anything for themselves and those who no longer can. Think about public education, we provide free basic education to every child with the expectation that once they are adults they will become productive members of society who in turn will continue to provide that education to the next generation. It's those who drop out and expect a welfare check that turn the rest of us against the system.
I would suggest that those people who do not desire to help themselves should have only charity of others as a resource and not be able to call on the body politic for help.
On the other hand, I am open to the idea that a person who has been a contributing member of society who needs help might have a reasonable claim as I have benefited from their contributions. That is after all the whole premise of insurance groups, that each member of the group contributes to the whole so any member can make a claim upon the group as a whole when needed.
Come on trans, how far does your logic go...answer the question:
This has to be repeated for transplant.
You state:
A) God commands Christians to give to the poor and care for the needy.
B) Christians aren't giving to the needy
C) Therefore government must compel them to obey god.
So I must ask transplant,
If the governments job is to compel Christians to do gods will, do you support a government program of stoning to death non-believers, adulterers and others according to the Old Testament?
Bot,
Rather than looking at donations, which is a sure measure of how much someone cares about a subject, we could make a very compelling argument that in a free and competitive economy the person who cares most about other people is the person who makes the most profit.
Remember, in a free market economy the only way to make a profit is to sell people the products they want - that means quality products at the right price. So the person who makes the most profit is generating the greatest amount of happiness in society.
Either way (donations or profits) I'm not using force and violence as a matrix for what constitutes an upstanding American.
Patrick,
I would say that the person who cares most about society is the person who is the least burden on society.
Charity and it's results are a purely private matter that government should have no role in. I also am inclined to reject your profit argument because it is quite possible for someone to profit at harm of others (please note I did not say "expense"). Whenever harm is present it is going to be ultimately to the detriment of society as a whole. Also, you are assuming that the profits made will somehow be re-invested in such a way that society will benefit from it. I will grant that an increase of employment or investments in new businesses *in one's own society* would be such a benefit.
"How ridiculous to be able to walk into a courtroom, knowing that regardless of your race, class or status, the judge's decision is a foregone conclusion because you either have or don't have the law and statutory authority on your side."
Would be nice but if it did work that way why would anyone go to court? Either attorney knows if the "law is on their side" or if it isn't and the state or client would now also.
Don't get sick henderson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, I don't know, Castle. Why WOULD someone who has the law and statutory authority on their side go to court? Maybe to get a JUDGEMENT, so that they can enforce performance of the contract?!!!
Seriously, are you retarded or something? Your question is akin to asking someone why they would actually mine for diamonds when they already own the mine.
Just dumb, dumb, dumb. Sorry, I don't ordinarily trash other posters, but who poses a question like that?? Just so stupid...
"This has to be repeated for transplant."
No, it does not need repeating. You miss the whole point.
"You state:
A) God commands Christians to give to the poor and care for the needy."
Yes, He does. Read the Bible.
"B) Christians aren't giving to the needy"
I did not say that. I said that if ALL of those within organized religion, especially the churches, gave as God instructed, then there would be no need for welfare programs.
"C) Therefore government must compel them to obey god."
I did not say that either. I said that the government is providing for the welfare of its people due to the lack of TOTAL participation of ALL organized religions.
I also went further to state that ALL non-profits should pay taxes, which could then be set aside to pay for the needed welfare and health care.
So I must ask transplant,
"If the governments job is to compel Christians to do gods will, do you support a government program of stoning to death non-believers, adulterers and others according to the Old Testament?"
...this STUPID question requires no answer as I NEVER stated that the government SHOULD legislate religion. I SAID THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAX THEM.
have you ever read something correctly??
Should the Salvation Army pay taxes?
What about United Way? They make tons of money and even save a lot of it.
How about the Red Cross?
Why are churches being singled out?
To sum it up; lunatic liberals and you liberals will never get a socialist healthcare system passed let alone to become law. American's will revolt, liberals know it, and they're just getting camera time speaking their lies to drum up more votes in 2010 and then try for 2012.
For those who don't have insurance or are really in need, stand in line behind the illegal's and entitlement abusers and wait your turn. If you don't want to wait, deport the illegal's get the abusers off the system. We're done paying to support their lazy pathetic life styles and we're surely paying taxes to support illegals and their baby making machines.
The funniest part of the entire ordeal, this is affirmative action at it best and look at what was this entitlement created, Obama. We now know why affirmative action doesn't work. When you're stupid, you're stupid and nobody can fix stupid. Obama just learned to be a better liar then others.
"For those who don't have insurance or are really in need, stand in line behind the illegal's and entitlement abusers and wait your turn."
And if you die in the meantime - hey that's one less person who'll collect Social Security later!
Did you let Victoria Jackson know you're ripping off her "A" material?
yes, Henderson, I think all non-profits should pay taxes on income and property, not just churches
they all enjoy all of the benefits those things funded by taxes, and why should they be exempt?
I can't believe anyone bothered to argue with people whose ideas would result in the destruction of any modern industrialized society foolish enough to implement them--and for 170+ comments, no less!
The hysteria from the right is too funny.
A public option, an idea supported by almost 70% of Americans, will "result in the destruction" of the United States?
It's the same rhetoric they tried with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. It's trite and baseless and, in practice, the rhetoric just spectacularly fails.
Meanwhile, our health care system continues to consume more of our GDP. In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of GDP.
"U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP."
This spending is unsustainable, yet the "Just Say No" republicans in Congress continue to tilt at windmills rather than presenting a viable alternative.
where do u get this notion that the train wreck being proposed by pres. obama is supported by 70% of Americans??? the New York Times???
and u really like calling any disagreement "hysteria" don't u?
Healthcare should only be universal if:
Levys/Surcharges are put in place:
1) McDonald's/Taco Bell/Junk food is regulated and taxed
2) Alcohol, Tobacco, and Prescription medicinces are taxed heavily and regulated
3) Dr. Visits are taxed
All these taxes could fund the Universal System -similar to all Telecommunications users being assess a Universal Service fee to extend phone service and broadband to the poor, rural areas, and schools. Look at your phone bill.
4) Life insurance policies are non-longer exempt from taxes
These could fund the system
&
1) People are assessed a Tax credit for going to a gym for a minumum amount of exercise
2) People get a credit for non-use of Doctors, Dentists, etc...
These would give incentive to curb use
Mr McCord, your premise is just wrong.
We the People of the United States in order to
- form a more perfect union,
- establish justice,
- ensure domestic tranquility
- Provide for the common defense
- PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and
- Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
You see, it's right there in the fifth bullet point. It has long been recognized that the both the federal and state governments have roles to play in promoting the general welfare. The lives of our people and viability of our economy depend upon it. And yes, I expect you to pay for someone else's doctor visits, just like you expect someone else to pay to help you when a natural disaster strikes. It's the right thing to do, especially when it would ultimately cost less for everyone.
The second thing that you got wrong is that the constitution enumerates SOME of our rights, not all of them. The founders debated whether to spell out certain rights for fear that some future person (you) would assume that the people had only those rights that the document enumerates. This is not the case. In fact, the ninth amendment specifically states that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
The people retain ALL rights not delegated to the federal government or to the states. Does that mean that the unalienable right to healthcare exists? Probably not, but the founders thought enough about the "general welfare" to specifically mention it as one of the reasons to form a government in the first place.
Healthcare funding is a functions that is better performed collectively and for the public good, not to drive profit to companies that don't provide health services. The government of WE THE PEOPLE has an interest in promoting the general welfare. And in the case of Medicare, it does so MUCH more efficiently and cheaply than private insurers. Providing a similar option to all of us would allow you to see whatever doctor you want AND save money.
Insurance companies have an interest in making a profit. The do so by denying to even cover some of us, and by denying the claims of those they do cover whenever they can. They perform no service that we couldn't perform better ourselves by pooling our money and using that pool to pay our doctors. The only difference is that the billions now being spent to deliver profit to insurance companies would be spent on actually providing healthcare to people who need it. The money goes to doctors, nurses, therapists, rather than companies that do nothing but serve as a middle men and skim money off the top.
Kintango,
The preamble is not law and does not carry force. Having said that, the question being raised by Mr. McCord is whether or not healthcare is a right.
You make a rational argument in your closing paragraphs that the health insurance industry is basically a mess. Most rational people will agree with that.
I am not prepared to say that healthcare itself is a right that any human being is entitled to. On the other hand, I am open to the argument that it might be in the citizenry's best interest to provide access to healthcare for its members. But even so, it must not be done in a way that is essentially theft from the productive members of society.
To put it another way, I owe you nothing simply because your parents decided to have some fun. Anything I do for you is going to be based on some form of mutual benefit.
Kintango65:
Excellent.
Constitution shouldn't be writing any health care rights as a law. That's a different law.
Constitution, it's the first privilege of America and every other law "stands corrected" after it.
I should clarify: the ideas of which I speak belong to those who seek to establish some libertarian utopia free of 'collectivist' redistribution--and in so doing explicitly deny any responsibility to provide for their fellow citizens unfortunate enough to have been born in poverty. The idea that those who perform society's backbreaking scutwork should be left to their own devices is a morally repugnant nineteenth-century anachronism that does not merit serious consideration.
(What's more, they've the temerity to cite the bank bailouts as evidence of government malfeasance, as if it wasn't the result of allowing the banks the 'freedom' to innovate!)
You can't cut the history away or you are cutting the piece of America away. This is the constitution about.
You are thinking time as a fool, if you want a new law, you do write it today, not yesterday.
You aren't thinking you want to change the signature of constitution ? That is revolution and illegal.
universal heath care now- if we had started this during the clinton years, this argument would be mute. some folks can't seem to realize they are being held stooges by doctors, big health insurance execs, drug makers. just amazing how the richest people keep issues out there to divide the rest of us for their profit.
uddeboda,
If it's taxed and regulated by the government, it restricts my freedom to donate to the causes that I find worthy or that are close to my heart. Does that make sense to you? My charitable contributions will go much further in the hands of my chosen organizations than it will in the hands of my out of control government.
Letting the government off the hook? I'm not sure I follow. It's not charity if it's a tax.
I am tired of working hard for a living and paying all these taxes that go to people who are too lazy to work! Everyone should take care of themselves and leave the government out of it. I think it is a shame at the direction this country is NOW heading ... spending money to worthless programs, taxing the hard working person to death, and rewarding those who are ignorant and lazy.
"I am tired of working hard for a living and paying all these taxes that go to people who are too lazy to work!"
I do work - I work a 40-hour a week day job and then do independent contract work 20 hours a week at night and on the weekends to make the ends meet. But other than my expiring Medicare, I have NO benefits and my medical bills will soon far exceed the money I do make.
I live at home. I have student loan debt and credit card debt (mostly medical debt). I have a cell phone, but it's the cheapest plan available and used almost exclusively for job hunting.
And yes, I have been looking for other work. It's been nearly 2 years since I had a job with benefits. I've sent out nearly 1000 resumes all over the country. I've gotten less than 10 call-backs.
Is that "hard enough" work for you, or should I give up sleeping and eating too?
Like I said before Doug, good things usually come to people that give. If I were in your position I would start dedicating a few hours a week to Habitat for Humanity or some other good cause that is close to your heart. I know you don't believe me, but there are good, helpful people with access to all kinds of programs and services to be met in those unselfish circles. Barring joining a church I would start trying to garnish some good karma for myself if I were you.
You don't have to have money to be a giver.
Transplant,
Your reasoning is simple bull here:
"B) Christians aren't giving to the needy"
I did not say that. I said that if ALL of those within organized religion, especially the churches, gave as God instructed, then there would be no need for welfare programs."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec...
In 2006 the world at $126 trillion in wealth. 40% was owned by the top 1% or $50 trillion. The world today has 6.7 billion people, meaning $67 million people own $50 trillion in wealth.
If we took that $50 trillion and spread it around the world we would have only enough to allow everyone to have just $7,500 in wealth.
That isn't yearly income that is wealth - all your assests combined - just $7500.
There is NOT enough wealth in the world to spread around and eliminate poverty. Thus, your whole criteria for having government intervention in the first place is bogus.
If you want to end poverty we need more free markets, more capitalism, more free trade - these are the only things that build MORE wealth and more wealth is the only way to end poverty.
Poverty in the US is $10,830 for a single person and $22,000 for a family of four. Not much in this country.
But there are 2 billion people on this planet living on less than $2 a day - $730 a year.
People at the poverty line in the United States have a higher income than the average person in about 100 other countries on this planet.
That is almost the per capita income of the average American in 1967 http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ChA...
We are getting wealthier and people are misplacing their worries and wanting more government to intervene the wealthier and better off we become.
In 1790 the GDP per capita was about $917 (2000 dollar value) per person. That isn't alot of wealth being generated.
By 2008 there was $38,262 per person. That is an increase of 4,000%
Why would the founding fathers have not advocated for a supreme welfare state when we were once so poor? Why, as we get wealthier and life gets better, longer, and easier, do we decide we need a welfare state?
http://www.measuringworth.org/datasets/u...
Zuck, you said".
"I should clarify: the ideas of which I speak belong to those who seek to establish some libertarian utopia free of 'collectivist' redistribution--and in so doing explicitly deny any responsibility to provide for their fellow citizens unfortunate enough to have been born in poverty. The idea that those who perform society's backbreaking scutwork should be left to their own devices is a morally repugnant nineteenth-century anachronism that does not merit serious consideration."
I think you've seriously erred in your reasoning. First, you imply a) that we must have a welfare state to take care of others because b) we have a responsibility to take care of others. You have not proven that we have a responsibility to take care of others.
Essentially you state, a) there is a collective responsibility to help others because b) we have a responsibility to help others. This, as you can see, is nonsensical. You must prove why you must compel by force some responsibility to help others.
By the way, I think the welfare state is evil, barbaric, backward, tyrannical, anti intellectual, anti-progress, and anti freedom. I think the welfare state stagnates progress, prolongs human misery and worst of all destroys the free individual and converts them into a mindless member of some all knowing collective. Obviously you strongly disagree.
But how do we fairly and non-violently settle this very large disagreement? How can people who so strongly oppose one another's forms of government live in a single country?
Sir Patrick...you are an idiot
I SAID NOTHING about spreading the wealth around the world.
why not go listen to talk radio and get really jazzed about yourself and your ideas and leave the boards alone as you do not read, and you twist what people say, just like your heroes bush, cheney, limbaugh, hannity, beck, and all of the other right wing a$$e$
transplanted,
yeah u would absolutely LOVE IT if patrick would "leave the boards alone" as he consistently, intelligently, and systematically picks apart your foolish progressive liberal socialist arguments.
if u can't handle the discussion, maybe YOU should "leave the boards alone".
Trans,
I'm not messing up your words, I'm just repeating what you said in a way that shows what you said wasn't all that bright. I seem to understand what you are saying better than you do.
From one of your statements:
"I said that the government is providing for the welfare of its people due to the lack of TOTAL participation of ALL organized religions."
Thus what you imply (and have implied the whole time) is wealth redistribution (whether it be healthcare or straight up cash): Take from one group give to another.
You have said: Government must take from X group because they are not giving enough. You have determined that they are not giving enough when assumed that if they did give enough there would be no need for welfare.
Obviously it is implied that there would be no need for welfare if there was no poverty (I say there is never a need for welfare) and that there would be no poverty if X group gave more of their money.
Since you are talking about wealth redistribution I dismantled your position by demonstrating that NO ONE, not even government can give enough to eliminate poverty. Thus the basis of your position on WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A WELFARE STATE stands on an impossible to satisfy condition. Thus the premise behind your entire theory is utter nonsense.
"In 1790 the GDP per capita was about $917 (2000 dollar value) per person. That isn't alot of wealth being generated.
By 2008 there was $38,262 per person. That is an increase of 4,000%
Why would the founding fathers have not advocated for a supreme welfare state when we were once so poor?"
Question: what was the average cost of living in 1790? I mean, you're comparing a pre-industrial rural agrarian economy to an industrialized urbanized one. Context is important in this circumstance.
What's the average cost of living today? You make the argument that even those at the poverty line are obscenely rich compared to people in other countries, which is true but not the point of discussion. Rather, the question is "is $10,830 enough for a single person to live on in the United States?"
All you've offered are numbers - without some way of knowing how those number should be interpreted, they are meaningless statistical artifacts.
Oh, I'm also libertarian trans - meaning I prefer limited government in all circumstances, I don't pick and choose like Bush and some others. I've also NEVER, repeat NEVER joined a political party of any kind and I never will.
If you want to lump me in a wing please lump me in the "liberty wing" or if you prefer directions how about the "top wing"?
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index....
Douglas
$917 dollars in 2000 dollar values in 1790 would buy you $917 worth of stuff in 2000 or just about $1000 worth of stuff today.
Meaning, how well could you live on just $1,000 a year?
At $10,830 a year, a person in America is poor, BY OUR STANDARDS, but they live very well compared to the poor in many countries. Furthermore, the American poor, while worse off than many in this country, are not struggling to survive.
If you want to see people struggling to survive go to a country where the average person lives on a dollar to two dollars a day.
Doug, let me shorten this for you, its not a meaningless number.
How well could you live $917 dollars today?
What would you have to do to make that work?
for those who have forgotten that one of the biggest problems with a government takeover of health care is the innate inefficiency, poor service, poor response to the needs of the customer, client, or patient, which are HALLMARKS of government run enterprise, I would like to share my experience this morning at the US Post Office.
I go into the post office to send a priority mail package. there are maybe 8 people in line in front of me. One female clerk at the desk, another clerk in an adjacent room (where passport photos are taken) calling in customers 1 at a time. At the other counter, where stamps, packing material, etc. are sold, is a middle aged male clerk. He is very slooooooooowly and deliberately unpacking a box full of packing materials and slooooooooooowly restocking the shelves of priority mail boxes.
Over the next 5 minutes, another 5 or 6 customers enter and join the line, at this point I am maybe 7th in line, so there are roughly 11-14 people in line.
The female clerk at the counter, in a very cheerful, polite respectful tone, asks the male clerk from across the room, "Jack (not his name, but we'll call him that), would u mind stocking later and helping us take care of these customers?"
Jack looks over at her, frowns, sighs, rolls his eyes and says, "that's not what I'm assigned to this morning, you and sheila need to get your act together". At this point we in line are all paying attention and exchanging glances. the female clerk at the main counter, looking embarrassed for Jack's display, says again in a nice tone of voice, "I'm just trying to get these customers taken care of, could u please help?"
Finally, after another sigh and roll of the eyes, Jack makes a big show for 30 seconds of placing his priority mail envelopes back in the box he was removing them from, then slooooooooowly saunters to a position behind his counter, then announces, "I'll take the next customer in line".
many of us in line exchanged glances, a couple of people made comments, but for the most part we were too afraid to say anything for fear he would "lose" our packages or mail. when it was my turn, i saw the female clerk who had asked for Jack's help. she was friendly and professional. I thanked her for helping all of us customers who were waiting.
So for those who think the government is going to suddenly do a much better, efficient job than the private sector, be careful what u wish for. If an employee of a private company like UPS or FEDEX had done what Jack had done, he would have been sternly reprimanded, if not fired. nobody bothered to ask to complain to a post office supervisor, because we all knew nothing would come of it.
"I would like to share my experience this morning at the US Post Office."
Joe, unless you have DIRECT evidence that a "public option" would be run by a newly created government agency similar to the USPS(hint: try looking at bill text from the U.S. House or Representatives), your story is very unsettling but kinda irrelevant.
And if you had asked to speak to a supervisor, you would not have had any trouble having your complaint heard.
Patrick, you miss the point.
How much did it cost a person in 1790 to live? You bring up numbers that state a person in 1790 was "worth" about $917 per year in today's numbers.
Now - take the cost of living in 1790, adjust THAT to 2000 dollars, and tell me would a person living at that time been considered poor or rich?
In short, you are making the WRONG comparison.
in 1790 that would have been $48 -- adjusted for inflation that comes to $917 in 2000 dollars. Now the only way we could do a proper cost of living adjustment is if we could equalize the products available across time. You certainly couldn't buy a 2,100 square foot, air conditioned home, powered by electricity, with a refrigerator, electric stove, and a two car garage in 1790. But you can get a sturdy pair of britches, some seed, acreage, and a musket today :P
Cost of living is up in good part due to the fact that we have a lot of cool stuff that you wouldn't have in 1790. But things like AC/ Tvs, internet, multiple shirts and pants, fridges, carpeting, two storied stucco homes, cars, lawnmowers, most medicines, doctors on call or dentists with painkillers, let alone health insurance"none of this is necessary to survive - and of course they weren't around in 1790.
So the question is very valid. How would you survive on $917 today?
The answer is, your life would be very difficult. You would not have your big A/C'ed home. You would not have a car, you would not have hot showers, you would not have instant oatmeal. Life would be hard.
Its very valid comparison - if it wasn't, economists would never have invented the concept of adjusting for inflation to compare dollar values across time. You just didn't want to answer the question and make the realization about how good life really is today and how much we all have to be thankful for - even the poorest American among us.
Life is getting better, so why do we need government to provide those things that never existed until human ingenuity (thanks to capitalism) created them? Life gets better so we need more government?
"You just didn't want to answer the question and make the realization about how good life really is today and how much we all have to be thankful for - even the poorest American among us."
I don't want to answer the question because it's a stupid question.
It's a variation on the one I hear all the time - I should just be happy that I'm alive because 30 years ago I would have died from what ails me.
So a guy who lives in a cardboard box because his home was foreclosed should just be happy because he MIGHT at some point be able to get that house back?
Is that really the argument you want to use?
"Joe, unless you have DIRECT evidence that a "public option" would be run by a newly created government agency similar to the USPS"
Doug it could be run by NASA, the EPA, the US Air Force, or UNLV it wouldn't matter. The results are going to be the same for very logical consistent reasons.
Government is inefficient and ineffective because it distorts very important market information - prices - from transmitting information on what is needed and how much of it is needed where. It means there are no incentives to economize, no competition to improve quality, and no risk to discourage stupid decision making.
The result is inefficiency, long lines, poor quality, disgruntled workers (and more disgruntled customers). It doesn't matter what the object, if its free, if consumers are not tied to the seller, if there is no competition etc, there will be predictable results.
To me this is a whole lot better than waving a magic wand and saying "Problem Fixed" or voting and thinking "gee golly now are guy is in office life sure will be grand."
Let us do some thought exercises on this subject Doug (joe or anyone else please feel to participate):
1) Lets assume you are out to lunch with a group of friends. What scenario would keep the cost of the bill low at the end of the night?
A) Each patron pays for their own dinner
B) Each patron puts into a pot and helps pay for everyone else
C) You use the company credit card and pay for everyone's dinner.
2) Congrats, you've just won $100. What way to use this money would provide you with the greatest amount of happiness?
A) You get to spend the money how you see fit
B) Your get the money and they buy you a present
C) Governor Gibbons gets the money and buys you a present
3) Your great Uncle Scrooge just passed away. He's left a fortune but his will says the family has to decide how best to split it up. What is the fairest way to divide the loot?
A) Hold a lottery
B) Have people rank the items 1-10 and put them in order of how much they want them
C) Give everyone some monopoly money and hold an auction
"It's a variation on the one I hear all the time - I should just be happy that I'm alive because 30 years ago I would have died from what ails me."
Yes, you should be happy because 30 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation. Now you have to ask yourself, are you willing to kill someone to extend your life? Would you put a gun to someone's head to extend your life?
I'm not in that situation so only you can answer that question.
"So a guy who lives in a cardboard box because his home was foreclosed should just be happy because he MIGHT at some point be able to get that house back?"
Ok so I guy stopped paying his bills on his home, lets even assume its through no fault of his own, he lost his job because Obama's bad policies helped burry the economy. Where are his friends? Where is his family? Why aren't they helping out.
Now ask yourself, are you willing to put a gun to someone's head to give someone a home they can't (for whatever reason) afford? Would you be willing to kill to give them a home?
"Is that really the argument you want to use?"
Yes, absolutely yes. We all should be happy to live today instead of 30, 40, 50, or 100, or 200 or 300 years ago. No matter how difficult our life gets today, life really stunk back then.
P_R_i_G(ibbons)
I asked you never to send me another personal email full of your rants and you replied with another email!!! You are a pompous bag of wind and just plain RUDE.
Stay away from my private email!
This isn't private email this is through the las vegas sun.
Narcissa, I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. The idea was if you already knew that the court would rule against you because you were guilty or in the wrong why would you go to court. You did however have a very good reaction so my post must have been very unclear.
PRG:"But how do we fairly and non-violently settle this very large disagreement?"
I would argue, sir, that it has been settled in the industrialized nations for more than a century!
You may rightly rail against the blunt instrument of state violence (although one wonders how many tax evaders--not deniers, mind you--have had their door kicked in by IRS SWAT teams in the middle of the night), but surely even you cannot deny that the lion's share of the wealth generated since 1790 has come as a result of public investments in transportation, sanitation & health, and education--including the state-supported institutions at which you were educated.
ps
Trans,
I'm not messing up your words, I'm just repeating what you said in a way that shows what you said wasn't all that bright. I seem to understand what you are saying better than you do.
From one of your statements:
"I said that the government is providing for the welfare of its people due to the lack of TOTAL participation of ALL organized religions."
Thus what you imply (and have implied the whole time) is wealth redistribution (whether it be healthcare or straight up cash): Take from one group give to another.
You have said: Government must take from X group because they are not giving enough. You have determined that they are not giving enough when assumed that if they did give enough there would be no need for welfare.
Obviously it is implied that there would be no need for welfare if there was no poverty (I say there is never a need for welfare) and that there would be no poverty if X group gave more of their money.
Since you are talking about wealth redistribution I dismantled your position by demonstrating that NO ONE, not even government can give enough to eliminate poverty. Thus the basis of your position on WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A WELFARE STATE stands on an impossible to satisfy condition. Thus the premise behind your entire theory is based on nonsense.
Zerk,
"I would argue, sir, that it has been settled in the industrialized nations for more than a century!"
Really, we've settled this debate? Far from it, people in all corners of the industrialized world disagree a lot on these issues. We've settled nothing and we are still battling it out in the political sphere.
So how would you solve this problem? How can we both have what we want and live in peace?
"You may rightly rail against the blunt instrument of state violence (although one wonders how many tax evaders--not deniers, mind you--have had their door kicked in by IRS SWAT teams in the middle of the night)"
Well, what does happen to someone who does not pay their taxes?
I can assure you that when you are forced by someone else to do something against your will they aren't saying "Hey do you want to pay your taxes...no...Ok, well maybe you'll change your mind next year."
"but surely even you cannot deny that the lion's share of the wealth generated since 1790 has come as a result of public investments in transportation, sanitation & health, and education--including the state-supported institutions at which you were educated."
...yes I can, because what you said isn't true. The lions share of wealth generated in America has been from private investment, not public. Most hospitals and universities were built with private dollars. Until the 20th century most roads were built privately, mainy railroads too (until rich people realized their were suckers willing to subsidize them, but that generated a whole new set of problems). Yes our government built the highway but 1) the private sector certainly could have when the time was right 2) that meant the people couldn't buy things they needed at the time 3) subsidized public roads took freight off rail leading to less energy efficient transportation by truck and of course helped with sprawl (which I understand left-wingers hate).
This is why I say people have to look deep at second and third tier effects.
Simply put, the government is NOT the engine of economic development. Government is often the very visible and painful backhand against the economy. I believe that it can cause much more harm than good. So again, how do we peacefully settle this dispute?
I do have a solution to this by the way, I'm just under the impression that no nanny statist can come up with it. I'll give you a hint: Robert Nozick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozi...
PRiG
you contacted me, personally, through the sun, but nonetheless it came to MY PERSONAL EMAIL instead of this board. And when I replied and told you NEVER TO CONTACT ME LIKE THAT AGAIN, YOU DID IT ANYWAY!
you pompous rude windbag - you think you are RIGHT about everything
you suck worse than a black hole in the cosmos
I suggest we all boycott replying to any of his posts lest he bombard all of our personal email inboxes.
By any practical measure, the debate is settled, for there has not been an industrial state with anything remotely approaching small government for a century or more.
To be sure, people like us may bat the ball back and forth, but some also maintain that Marx's Revenge is just around the corner, a position equally divorced from reality.
Trans,
You can set it so you don't get contacted. Its quite simple just follow the directions.
But don't be mad and call names it shows that you lost the debate.
Patrick, sorry...you and I are never going to agree, and you're just a constant and very whiny source of irritation.
"Oh, friends and family should help!" - right, because everyone has family and friends that aren't already hurting or in even worse financial straits.
"You can't force someone to be compassionate!" - no, but you can demand that they act like a DECENT HUMAN BEING. Decency means you don't stand idly by and let someone suffer just because you don't feel compassion for them.
You're dogmatic (and yes, one can be dogmatic about things that are not based upon religious principles) because you state that everything can be solved in the same way. I wouldn't be surprised if the problem was "a meteor will strike the Earth", you'd suggest a tax cut will fix it.
"By any practical measure, the debate is settled, for there has not been an industrial state with anything remotely approaching small government for a century or more."
Really? I wonder what constitutes a big government to you?
I'll certainly agree that there is no true night watchman state, which would be the best of all available states, but does that mean the debate is settled?
How do you define settled debate? It seems you define it by suggest that it is over when a tyrant says it is.
That doesn't mean the debate is settled, only that one side violently opposes the opposition. My question to you was how do people like us live in a society with our different opinions, realize those opinions, still get along, and do so peacefully?
Better yet, how can the anarchist, minarchist, conservative, liberal, statist, socialist, and marxist all have their ideal societies realized without resorting to violence against their neighbor?
"Patrick, sorry...you and I are never going to agree, and you're just a constant and very whiny source of irritation."
Probably not, but at least I don't resort to ad-hom. ;P
" right, because everyone has family and friends that aren't already hurting or in even worse financial straits."
Wow, a family of 5,6,7,8, 9 or more immigrants can live together and help each other out and they are in a worse situation than us non immigrants. Are you suggesting we full American citizens are entitled to more or something? Or that you just have a cruel family?
" - no, but you can demand that they act like a DECENT HUMAN BEING. Decency means you don't stand idly by and let someone suffer just because you don't feel compassion for them."
1) Who said people would stand idly by?
2) Seems to me you just think everyone is evil except people who think like you.
3) Your definition of decent human requires compassion yet you are willing to force people to be decent which as you agree means you can't compel them to be compassionate. A logical catch-22....nevertheless I'm willing to bet you'll over look this slight to achieve your objective.
"You're dogmatic (and yes, one can be dogmatic about things that are not based upon religious principles) because you state that everything can be solved in the same way. I wouldn't be surprised if the problem was "a meteor will strike the Earth", you'd suggest a tax cut will fix it."
A meteor has nothing to do with idiotic government policy, your stretching the logic really far right now.
Having a theory of how the world works that is logically consistent throughout is a good thing. Liberals and conservatives are irritated by it, like you are, because your explanation of the world requires you to jump through so many logical loopholes you determine that complex (meaning you don't even understand it) must be the right answer.
"I wonder what constitutes a big government to you?"
Oh, let's say gov't expenditures at <10% of GDP.
"It seems you define it by suggest[sic] that it is over when a tyrant says it is."
If by "tyrant" you mean a century of policy by a range of democratically constituted governments operating with the consent of their respective citizenry, yes.
"Better yet, how can the anarchist, minarchist, conservative, liberal, statist, socialist, and marxist all have their ideal societies realized without resorting to violence against their neighbor?"
This is a red herring because the state, any state, is violence incarnate. Do we really need to go back to Hobbes? Or should we stop at 1848?
As of this moment there has been (216) opinions on this article and as far as I can tell, not one person is without medical care in this country as of right now.
Hell! illegal aliens can have babies in this united states of america and they become citizens, just because they are squeezed out in an american hospital.
We all can not have the same cars, homes, incomes, wives, husbands, dogs, cats, etc.!etc.! etc.!
So why is it that there are those who think we should all have the same medical coverage?
I have said it before and I will say it again, get rid of the (11)million or more illegal alliens, including the one's that were born here illegaly and I would be glad to pay my fair share of taxes for those americans (real ones) that live in this country.
There is no person that go's without medical care in this country if they want it!!! And if you have a terminal illness and can type on this site and complain, you are obviously receving it!
Some people drive a porsche and some will not drive at all! That is just the way it is!
If you are looking for something that is free, then do not expect to get what I pay for, it's a pretty simple statement.
I think it is great to remember 1 or 2 hundred years ago for some reason or another but this is now not then.
Everyone doe's not deserve what I have and I do not deserve to have less because of them.
Health care is a choice, just like puffing on a cigarette is a choice.
Look at it this way, A illegal allien has a baby in san diego ca. and it is guaranteed to become a U.S. citizen!!!
And a mexican mother 5 miles away in tijuana has a baby, that dont have chit to look forward to in life.
We are talking 5 miles of difference here and look at the unequality.
But hey!!! that's just the way it is "RIGHT"!!!
2UALL,
well said.
if u libs don't like your lot in life, work to improve yourselves and your lives, instead of trying to forcibly take from me what I have worked for.
and the man is right. nobody in this country is left to die on the emergency room floor because they don't have health insurance.
I do not get what DouglasDemocrat's point is.
Currently he is getting coverage under Medicare which is a GOVERNMENT health insurance program.
So what is he barking about?
He is already getting government health insurance.
Is he unhappy with it?
Think of this health care scenario like a great game of high stakes poker!!!
If all of the players are dealt royal flushes!!!
"END GAME"
DO YOU GET THE POINT NOW!!!!
"nobody in this country is left to die on the emergency room floor because they don't have health insurance."
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/02/...
"Ruptured bowel led to death in ER lobby
A 43-year-old woman who writhed in pain for 45 minutes on the emergency room lobby floor of Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital died of a perforated bowel, the Los Angeles County coroner's office said late Friday."
This is getting tedious, folks.
her death had nothing to do with a lack of health insurance coverage. read the article. nothing is mentioned of health insurance coverage.
but something is mentioned of her use of prescription drugs and methamphetamine.
boy this REALLY makes me want to put the government in charge of ALL our healthcare, so that ALL our hospitals can operate as efficiently as the Martin Luther King Jr Harbor Hospital.
ZERSTUCKELUNG
It is quite obvious your not the sharpest marble in the bag if you know what I mean!!!!!!
It is not acceptable to me that mrs.rodriguez did not receive the care that she deserved in a timley manner, like she should have received.
But this problem belongs to the hospital and their staff, not the cost of the health care being provided or who was paying for it.
Just the fact that she was a tweaker says it all!! Obviously she did not give a chit about herself and no I do not feel sorry for her drug abuse and I damn sure shoul not be paying for it and none of the other hard working citizens should be paying either.
Again "BAD HOSPITAL" not bad government health care.
Get you facts straight if your going to defend the dopers!!!
And ZESTUCKELUNG do not feel bad about not being the sharpest marble in the bag!!!
You have a lot of competion up above!!!
BAD SERVICE NOT INSURANCE.
"He is already getting government health insurance."
I said it 5 fricking times - it will RUN OUT in less than 12 months. Then I will have NO insurance and I DON'T HAVE $50,000 to pay for the medication I need to stay alive and I CAN'T GET INSURANCE or GET THAT KIND OF MONEY.
Is it clear now, or do I need to use semaphore?
Again Doug,
You say, "You can't force someone to be compassionate!" - no, but you can demand that they act like a DECENT HUMAN BEING. Decency means you don't stand idly by and let someone suffer just because you don't feel compassion for them.
What contributions do you make to your friends, family, neighbors? How exactly do you practice what you preach?
Zers
"Oh, let's say gov't expenditures at <10% of GDP."
Why 10%? I like 10% mind you...did you know some economists find that government spending above 20% of the GDP leads to slower economic growth? Do you also recognize that big government can mean more than just taxes? Regulations for example can have a major impact.
"If by "tyrant" you mean a century of policy by a range of democratically constituted governments operating with the consent of their respective citizenry, yes."
Yes, democracy can be tyrannical. Your not suggesting that everything democratic is good? Need I remind you of how Nazis came to power? Need I remind you of American slavery and segregation? Was that a century of social justice because it was democratically decided?
"This is a red herring because the state, any state, is violence incarnate. Do we really need to go back to Hobbes? Or should we stop at 1848?"
Yes, all states are violence incarnate, some more so than others. This isn't a red herring at all, this is a libertarian asking a nanny-statist, how they might get groups of wildly disagreeing individuals to live in peace. How do you construct a society that greats the most happiness for the largest numbers? I'll even throw in an assumption to help you out: lets assume that all parties agree that the proper role of government is the provision or regulation of public goods (non-excludable, non-rivaled). They also agree that government must defend the nation and punish criminals (people who steal, commit fraud, assault, and murder). Beyond that disagreement becomes sharp.
"What contributions do you make to your friends, family, neighbors? How exactly do you practice what you preach?"
I work 2 jobs to try and make enough to pay the bills. I study when I'm not working to better myself to get a better job.
I help my parents around the house to "work off" some of the help they've given me. I listen to my friends when they need a shoulder to cry on or someone to vent at when they're angry.
I donate used, but servicable, clothing to charity. Before I started working as hard as I am, I went to transplant network functions to help "put a face" on my condition.
Like I said, I'm not a saint. But I do the best I can.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/200...
15,000 die in a heat wave in France in 2003..in all about 37,000 died across Europe that year. In the US the deaths by heat waves come no where close to that.
France, the nation with the 35 hour work weak and cradle to grave care. The people there have just 73% of the per capita income as the average American...and they still get taxed more (sales and income).
Europeans on average don't have the luxuries we Americans take for granted - like full size fridges, automobiles (2 on average for a family here) and air conditioning.
"I said it 5 fricking times - it will RUN OUT in less than 12 months."
Why will it run out in 12 months?
Did you get a kidney transplant?
"Why will it run out in 12 months?
Did you get a kidney transplant?"
Yes, and the anti-rejection drugs alone cost $2000 a month without insurance (despite being on the market for over 20 years, no generics are available). Add in the other medicines I have to take and you're over $3000 a month just for the maintenance treatments.
Without which I end up back on dialysis (which costs $7000 per month) and unlikely to get a second shot at an organ (I waited 7 years the first time around because Medicare doesn't pay the full cost and I didn't have secondary insurance that would).
Blame the FDA and the federal government for your problems here...especially the drug problem...
as for the transplant, the fact that it is illegal to buy and sell organs means that supply is limited and waiting lists are long.
"as for the transplant, the fact that it is illegal to buy and sell organs means that supply is limited and waiting lists are long."
Waiting lists would still be long for certain organs regardless - you can't just plug an organ in based on blood type alone. It has to match on other factors as well (genetic markers and body size difference are the most prevalent), and the line for AB and O (the two hardest blood types in terms of matching) won't change.
Not only that, but it only solves for organs you can live without. Heart patients won't see any improvement in the system.
Brain transplants might help improve some of this.
I believe that you will continue to get Medicare benefits for dialysis treatment if the kidney transplant does not take properly.
See...the government is taking care of you.
"I believe that you will continue to get Medicare benefits for dialysis treatment if the kidney transplant does not take properly."
If I were you, Rock, I would rethink this strategy.
Dialysis is not funny. It's a horrible, destructive, wasting experience that I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
If you would like to approximate the experience, try wearing a full-body wetsuit, walking along Green Valley Parkway all day long, and only drinking a total of 8 8-oz. glasses of water. And then do that every day for 7 years and tell me how you feel.
I still do not understand what your point is.
It seems that you can be the poster ad for why government healthcare insurance DOES NOT WORK.
For whatever reason, you did not have private insurance when you got sick. So you are stuck with government insurance which seems to suck by story that you are listing.
Yet, Obama and his Democratic pals what to force that crap down our throats and take away our hard earn good private insurance plans.
Thanks but no thanks
"So you are stuck with government insurance which seems to suck by story that you are listing."
No, the insurance is fine except for the fact that it will run out. I've never had a problem seeing a doctor or getting the medication I need - the premium is $98 a month, and the co-pay is reasonable.
Private insurance is NOT AN OPTION for me or many thousands of others like me - the premiums would be completely unworkable assuming that we could even get insurance due to preexisting conditions.
Seriously, is that ALL you get. It's like I write the words, then you take them and make up whatever fits your belief I said.
"No, the insurance is fine except for the fact that it will run out"
Quit saying that. It will not run out. They are just going to force you to take a different treatment path which you dislike. That is what government run insurance will do. It gives far less options than private insurance. The treatment paths usually are very rigid and not flexible for government insurance. It is far more bureaucratic than private insurance. It has zero flexibility. The amount it pays for care is far less so therefore the quality of care could be lower than private insurance.
I get it. You hate the government insurance and you lust for the better private insurance.
"Private insurance is NOT AN OPTION " Private insurance was an option for you. For whatever reason, you did not have it when you got sick. It probably was a low priority for you. Like many young people, they prefer to buy TV's, cars and go partying then dishing money out on insurance.
They are going to change that too. They are going to force working young adults to buy insurance.
"Quit saying that. It will not run out. They are just going to force you to take a different treatment path which you dislike."
No, it's going to run out. They are TERMINATING the insurance because I no longer qualify as totally disabled.
"I get it. You hate the government insurance and you lust for the better private insurance."
Are you being deliberately dense to annoy me? Because it's working.
I LIKE THE INSURANCE I HAVE NOW! I couldn't get a better policy in the private market even if I didn't have a pre-existing condition.
"Private insurance was an option for you. For whatever reason, you did not have it when you got sick."
I was IN COLLEGE and NOT WORKING at the time. My parents wanted me focused on my schoolwork and not trying to balance a job and college at the same time. Their insurance covered me until I got sick, when Medicare took over.
"No, it's going to run out. They are TERMINATING the insurance because I no longer qualify as totally disabled."
Medicare ESRD benefits never run out if you have kidney problems but they will change your treatment path. If they determine that your kidney is OK then they no longer need to cover you. They not let you take those $3,000 a month drugs forever. Once, you get a kidney transplant then the clock starts ticking. After a time period, if the new kidney does not take then move you back onto dialysis. Then you wait another time period before attempting kidney transplant and/or drug treatments.
It is tough but the world we live in does not have unlimited funds and the taxpayer can't give you premium treatment plan A forever when treatment plan B will do OK.
I am all for universal health care when all participants take personal responsibility for their own health. If you are a non-smoker, non-alcoholic or non substance
abuser and have a healthy BMI then by all means I am willing to assist. However, when people make reckless choices with their health and then expect others to pick up the ensuing costs, I say NO. If there is to be health care, present me with a sliding scale. Those who take responsibility are less taxed than those who do not.
"If they determine that your kidney is OK then they no longer need to cover you."
What about this is not getting through?
My kidneys are DEAD. D-E-A-D DEAD!
I have a transplanted kidney - the medication is anti-rejection medication that keeps the transplanted kidney functional. I have to take these medications FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
If I STOP taking them the transplanted kidney WILL FAIL. And then I end up back on dialysis, which costs TWICE as much as the medications - so your argument doesn't make sense. You're willing to have the government fork over $7,000 a month for dialysis treatments but not $3,000 a month for medication that would PREVENT those same treatments from becoming necessary again?
Either you really don't get it, or you'd rather I just die and get out of your way. Please tell me so that I can decide whether you're clueless or a sociopath.
. I love reading the whining and complaining here on why Government healthcare is the only option. Not too obvious who the Democrats are in the room; you're same old rhetorical excuses give you away.
Here is what most of you sound like who want more Government in your life. Poor little me, I didn't do anything wrong, my parents abused me when I a child, it's their fault I didn't pull the trigger, the gun made me do it. I can't get a job and I can't become a functional member of society because many generations ago my ancestors where bought and sold. I can't do well in school because our school is older and we need a new one. I love welfare because every time I have a new baby, I get a pay raise and I get free insurance.
As I've stated many times, get the free loaders and illegal immigrants off the system and put term limits on how long they suck off the system. You don't need another program, the one you has works, it is broke in two part, money and efficient. The broke on is an easy fix, see above. The second is easy too; stop using affirmative action to hire the managers and subordinates responsible to oversee the day to day operations. Until then; stop whining and complaining.
"If I STOP taking them the transplanted kidney WILL FAIL. And then I end up back on dialysis, which costs TWICE as much as the medications - so your argument doesn't make sense."
So you have a problem with government ran health insurance. That is what you got.
I agree with you that government ran health insurance generally makes no sense.
It is too bad that you are stuck with government ran health insurance.
"Most of the population uses this system, although there are always some, with money to burn that take out an extra health insurance, why, I really dont know, its not needed"
The reason why is that healthcare is rationed in your country.
There is a study that says that many surgeries the average wait time is over 3 months.
The smart people have the extra insurance so that they can bypass that non-sense and get proper care so that they do not have to deal with pain for over 3 months.
"I agree with you that government ran health insurance generally makes no sense."
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING AT ALL! TRY READING WHAT I WRITE FOR ONCE INSTEAD OF MAKING UP WHAT YOU THINK I'M SAYING!
Government-run health care can work without rationing only if we have unlimited resources to meet unlimited demand. We don't. There is no such thing as unlimited resources, but there is unlimited demand. Rationing of health care is as necessary as would be rationing of food or cars or clothing if you made them "free."
The free market handles the need to ration limited resources through the price mechanism. People who are willing to pay the going price for something can buy it. People who are willing to produce something for the going price can sell it. All transactions are voluntary, and competition ensures maximum possible efficiency in how resources are used. Overall social welfare is maximized.
With a taxpayer-funded system, health care is rationed by a bureacracy (see NICE in the UK). The quantity and quality of health care is decided by someone other than the people producing it and the people consuming it. Consequently, resources are misallocated, and social welfare is reduced. (See every socialist country in the history of the planet.)
No system can satisfy every member of society. Efforts to do that fail, because all resources are limited and all demand is potentially unlimited. The free market simply results in the greatest satisfaction and the highest standard of living of any economic system.
This does not even address the morality of taking the product of one person's labor and giving it to another person, whether or not the person receiving it "deserves" it. It may seem moral to help someone who "deserves" it, but it is immoral to forcibly take the product of anyone's labor without compensation deemed adequate by them. An act cannot be moral if it requires that an immoral act must be committed. Put another way, the end doesn't justify the means. The folly of trying to do this is that people will simply stop laboring, and then there is no product to confiscate. Trying to force them to produce commits another immoral act and ultimately fails anyway.
"It may seem moral to help someone who "deserves" it, but it is immoral to forcibly take the product of anyone's labor without compensation deemed adequate by them."
So it's more "moral" if someone dies instead because they can't pay the going price? How is that better?
I've had my fill of willful obtuseness on this thread. All I hear is that I should be more godly, I should be more giving, and if I die it's because I'm just sick and it's my time to go.
Government rationed healthcare also results in deaths.
There are studies in people die because of government ran health insurance programs/healthcare and it is generally because of wait times or offically endorse reduced benefits.
Some have said that the recent USA actress that died in Canada probably had her chances of survial greatly reduced because Canada government ran healthcare does not have that many MRI machines and they did not correctly determine the degree of her head injuries until it was too late. It took them over 12 hours to get her to the nearest MRI machine.
DouglasDemocrat proves that government ran healthcare rations care.
He is complaining that his government provided drug coverage will end soon and they switch him to a different more harsher but cheaper treatment plan.
"He is complaining that his government provided drug coverage will end soon and they switch him to a different more harsher but cheaper treatment plan."
*shakes head* You really don't get it. And I'm done explaining it - I've explained it over 10 times ON THIS THREAD ALONE, and you still don't get it.
LOL, what do you all expect from Douglas Democrat. Read all his threads, A-Typical, feel sorry for me democrat wanting something for nothing, poor little me. People would take you serious if you'd be proactive and not one who wants to be a codependent on our tax dollar.
DD, if you really need help then stop whining and do something about it. We understand your sick and you need medical attention. There are many charities that will provide you with assistance so stop relying on the Government; the government is not the cure of America's problems, they are the only reason America is so messed up.
DouglasDemocrat, anybody can go out and read on how the ESRD Medicare program works.
You even have admited to these facts.
Once you get a transplant in the program then they will give you the expensive drugs to help the kidney take.
They only allow that for so long because it so expensive. Anyway, the drugs are not designed to be taken for life. After the period ends and the kidney does not work then Medicare will put you back on dialysis and cover that.
Then you wait for another time period before they will cover another kidney transplant and another round of drugs.
So it is a falsehood that Medicare will not help you if after the drug period is over and you have troubles with your kidneys.
It is true that after you drug coverage period is over and if your kidneys are HEALTHLY then your Medicare coverage will be over.
That is how the GOVERNMENT health insurance program works.
It is very bureaucratic.
It has ZERO flexible.
Unlike private insurance, you can not sue the government if you think it is unfair or unhealthly.
That is what they want to force on all us and take away our private insurance programs.
You can get private insurance to cover any issuses not related to your kidney. There is even some places, like employees who work for government agencies, where you can get health insurance that covers pre-existing conditions immediately.
Private insurance companies in Nevada can not look at pre-existing conditions that are before the previous 6 months. So if you have healthy kidneys and no health issue for 6 months they can private insurance for all conditions. They can excluded treatment for pre-existing conditions up to 18 months. After 18 months, they have to cover all conditions. So right now, you get private insurance. After 18 months, they have to cover all conditions even pre-existing ones.
There is always Medicaid if you are poor enough.
If you make too much money for Medicaid then there are tons of programs that help with medical bills.
Most medical providers will do back flips to put people on payment plans and they will often write off a signicant portion of the bill.
In the USA people are not denied basic medical care because the lack of funds.
People are denied the expensive treatment programs when a more basic one is available.
People are denied the expensive experimental programs that have a low chance of success too.
There are limits to resources. It is not Star Trek.
But if you think private insurance or HMO ration health care then you ain't seen nothing yet.
Once Obama goons get their hands on health care then you be lucky to get see a specialist...ever.
"Anyway, the drugs are not designed to be taken for life. After the period ends and the kidney does not work then Medicare will put you back on dialysis and cover that."
*headdesk*
Just shut up. Shut up now. Because I swear I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR STUPID AND UNINFORMED SPEECHES.
You don't know how ESRD works. You're not a nephrologist. You're not a kidney patient. You're just a self-righteous piece of crap. And I don't care if I'm a hypocrite in saying it, because you deserve it.
Same with you its2hot. You are BOTH perfect examples of callous, coldhearted and sick people who DON'T BOTHER TO LISTEN and decide that you can READ MY MIND AND MAKE UP WHATEVER YOU THINK ABOUT ME.
So do me a favor...just LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE! I quit.
Mods, delete my account. I'm tired of this.
wha, wha, wha, wha, wha, wha, wha. When facts and truth comes out, a typical tree hugger - CUT N RUN
DD is gone, this threads action just came to a screaching halt!
don't worry, he's like the terminator....
He'll be back.
Yep. DD will be back with a vengeance. I find it sad that some people really do believe what the politicians say and when it comes to their Democrat party affiliation, some are just off the wall lunatics.
Society needs to get back to our core believes and what America was founded upon; truth in advertising, unbiased media and reporting, honesty, respect, hard work, and family. Reading newspapers and watching news is like infomercials and commission based sales people, lies and bias. The bias and lies are crammed down the consumer's throat so much and those with less intelligence actually believe and live their lives based on they hear or read.
lunatics is right. the same people that carp and attack our nations history and government, now magically believe the the federal government is all wise and beneficent now that Obama is in charge. lining up like sheep going to be sheared.