Is health care a right or a luxury?

[bettilimbroke999]

If you read bettillimbroke's earlier posts in this thread as compared to the later ones, it sounds like 2 different people with totally different political mindsets are posting under his name. The earlier posts seem very rational while his postings on page 4 resemble the left-wing lunatic he truly is.

Its not two different ppl but yes I am being slowly pulled to the socialized health care side bc I see no reason to deny medical services to someone just bc they are poor, it is shameful that helping the sick is only used as a way to fleece them in this country. I do not think pure greed and pure capitalism is a great plan, there has to be socialist aspects to any system for it to be reasonable, think about it without public education where would many of us be, without minimum wage, without social security and medicare and many other programs in place that are centered around the greater good of the nation. I am all for making a profit and capitalism but fuk where do you draw the line, I mean enslaving ppl and paying them nothing was prolly pretty profitable back in the day does that mean its a fair policy. Someone who breaks their leg and has the bone sticking out isnt going to turn down your services regardless of the price, you could say 10k or 500k, they're not in a position to negotiate and given the outrageous costs of health care we are all forced to have insurance which adds another greed aspect since clearly the insurance company is going to make additional profit on top of the skyrocketing health care costs.

Do I see a problem for the ultra-rich that paid the genius private doctors millions for treatment, yes I do, but who gives a fuk you or I were never going to see them anyway, if I need a kidney transplant Im not going to search the country over for the best specialist in the country bc my insurance would never pay for it, Im gonna take whatever run of the mill doc they throw at me and pray the sob hasnt been on a bender for the previous week and actually has some kind of success rate.

This is an interesting argument and yes my opinions do move in one direction or the other based on the arguments. I wouldnt be a good neocon I dont just believe whatever I want regardless of the facts, I actually consider new information. Am I willing to support raising taxes to start more pointless wars, no, am I willing to support raising taxes to help my fellow Americans when they have serious health problems but due to the ridiculous prices are unable to attain medical care, yes.

I dont even have a problem if a lil extra is taken out of paychecks in the same way medicare is taken out to help fund the program and if employers have to kick back a large sum (matching or more) separate of taxes to help fund it so be it, any decent employer should already fund a group health care plan anyway. Im not trying to starve the doctors and have them quit in disgust bc they had to help a poor person theyll still make a fortune its not like the govt doesn't pay reasonably well, I dont see the rocket scientists at NASA beggin for change.

If absolutely the only reason doctors become doctors in this country is to become filthy rich gouging their fellow Americans then perhaps ppl are having their eyes opened to the downsides of capitalism, that greed is not always good, sometimes humanity has to be placed above the almighty dollar.

[losturmarbles]

Healthcare is a right. Not everyone is an unwed ghetto mother who has 6 kids by 6 different baby daddies!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life - I guess we all have the right to live but we should all just phukin die if we can't afford to pay for a medical procedure?

Those against socialized health care are bitching and moaning about poor people who are taking handouts but who is talking about the working poor. The working poor who go to work everyday, make an honest dollar and barely have enough money to pay their expenses? I guess they're deadbeats because they should be able to make something better of themselves because we live in America where anything is possible. Those who actually believe this are simply not living in the real world.

The middle class of this country is dissappearing and the gov't is incompetent. Look at social security in this country. We all pay into it but we're not going to get anything in return for it. The gov can't run social security correctly yet we expect them to be able to run the healthcare system? It will never, ever happen. It's nothing more than wishful thinking on the parts of those who need it most.

The goverment should fear the people but the people fear the government in the good ol US of A. Let me pose a serious question.....

If the goverment is supposed to be by the people for the people then why don't the people have a say in the issues that effect them the most?

you can't have a right to healthcare without infringing on someone else's life and liberty.

you can't claim to have a right to health care and still be an advocate of freedom.

anyone that does is only fooling themselves.

[bettilimbroke999]

you can't have a right to healthcare without infringing on someone else's life and liberty.

you can't claim to have a right to health care and still be an advocate of freedom.

anyone that does is only fooling themselves.

Ridiculous how are you infringing on someone else's life and liberty by having health insurance?

[losturmarbles]

Its not two different ppl but yes I am being slowly pulled to the socialized health care side bc I see no reason to deny medical services to someone just bc they are poor, it is shameful that helping the sick is only used as a way to fleece them in this country. I do not think pure greed and pure capitalism is a great plan, there has to be socialist aspects to any system for it to be reasonable, think about it without public education where would many of us be, without minimum wage, without social security and medicare and many other programs in place that are centered around the greater good of the nation. I am all for making a profit and capitalism but fuk where do you draw the line, I mean enslaving ppl and paying them nothing was prolly pretty profitable back in the day does that mean its a fair policy. Someone who breaks their leg and has the bone sticking out isnt going to turn down your services regardless of the price, you could say 10k or 500k, they're not in a position to negotiate and given the outrageous costs of health care we are all forced to have insurance which adds another greed aspect since clearly the insurance company is going to make additional profit on top of the skyrocketing health care costs.

Do I see a problem for the ultra-rich that paid the genius private doctors millions for treatment, yes I do, but who gives a fuk you or I were never going to see them anyway, if I need a kidney transplant Im not going to search the country over for the best specialist in the country bc my insurance would never pay for it, Im gonna take whatever run of the mill doc they throw at me and pray the sob hasnt been on a bender for the previous week and actually has some kind of success rate.

This is an interesting argument and yes my opinions do move in one direction or the other based on the arguments. I wouldnt be a good neocon I dont just believe whatever I want regardless of the facts, I actually consider new information. Am I willing to support raising taxes to start more pointless wars, no, am I willing to support raising taxes to help my fellow Americans when they have serious health problems but due to the ridiculous prices are unable to attain medical care, yes.

I dont even have a problem if a lil extra is taken out of paychecks in the same way medicare is taken out to help fund the program and if employers have to kick back a large sum (matching or more) separate of taxes to help fund it so be it, any decent employer should already fund a group health care plan anyway. Im not trying to starve the doctors and have them quit in disgust bc they had to help a poor person theyll still make a fortune its not like the govt doesn't pay reasonably well, I dont see the rocket scientists at NASA beggin for change.

If absolutely the only reason doctors become doctors in this country is to become filthy rich gouging their fellow Americans then perhaps ppl are having their eyes opened to the downsides of capitalism, that greed is not always good, sometimes humanity has to be placed above the almighty dollar.

Ridiculous how are you infringing on someone else's life and liberty by having health insurance?

ignorance is bliss huh bettill. there is no one out there that is going to look after yourself more than yourself. trusting politicians to look after humanity is a fool's errand.
every government program that has ever come along has always hurt the intended people it was designed to help. public education, minimum wage, social security, medicare. all of them.

open up your mind and watch this interview. Milton Friedman on PBS Open Mind in 1975.


02:25
"Programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well intentioned sponsors intend them to have."
10:55
"There's been one underlying basic fallacy in this whole set of social security and welfare measures, and that is the fallacy - this is at the bottom of it - the fallacy that it is feasible and possible to do good with other people's money. That view has two flaws. If I want to do good with other people's money, I first have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosphy of doing good with other people's money, at it's very bottom, is a philosophy of violence and coercion. It's against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money. In the second place, very few people spend other people's money as carefully as they spend their own."

[bettilimbroke999]

Lost if ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest guy on earth, just assuming the selfish greedy neocons would voluntarily give their money to pay for medical care for the needy is ridiculous, also how is minimum wage not to the poor workers benefit?

Of course you have to take the money from ppl in the form of taxes that is how you fund government programs, just bc something doesnt directly benefit you doesnt mean it infringes on your life and liberty to tax you for it bc given a certain situation you'd be eligible to use that program and in the case of socialized health care everyone would receive benefits from the program. I dont use the roads in certain parts of town does that mean they should just drive on dirt roads while everyone decides if we want to donate pavement since it infringes on our rights to pay for roads we dont need. By your logic the rich could just pay to pave their own roads, private police and firemen and not be taxed at all, while the poor that pay no taxes should drive on dirt with no govt programs to their benefit since they dont pay enough taxes to fund them. You've got two things I guarantee you will do in this country lost, you will die and you will pay taxes until you die, get used to it, no one but the far right nuts find this particularly shocking, yes at a certain point taxes need to be curtailed but 35% on the top earners is comparatively very reasonable when you look at other countries

I know I know the poor dont get taxed as much as the rich, yes I know I know the system is unfair, a business owner gets taxed 300k on his mil a year income while a homeless person doesnt have to pay anything, I know I know the homeless person has got it made and the rich man is having his life and liberty infringed on

[losturmarbles]

You can lead a horse to water...

Lost if ignorance were bliss you'd be the happiest guy on earth, just assuming the selfish greedy neocons would voluntarily give their money to pay for medical care for the needy is ridiculous, also how is minimum wage not to the poor workers benefit?

Of course you have to take the money from ppl in the form of taxes that is how you fund government programs, just bc something doesnt directly benefit you doesnt mean it infringes on your life and liberty to tax you for it bc given a certain situation you'd be eligible to use that program and in the case of socialized health care everyone would receive benefits from the program. I dont use the roads in certain parts of town does that mean they should just drive on dirt roads while everyone decides if we want to donate pavement since it infringes on our rights to pay for roads we dont need. By your logic the rich could just pay to pave their own roads and not be taxed at all, while the poor that pay no taxes should drive on dirt

I know I know the poor dont get taxed as much as the rich, yes I know I know the system is unfair, a business owner gets taxed 300k on his mil a year income while a homeless person doesnt have to pay anything, I know I know the homeless person has got it made and the rich man is having his life and liberty infringed on

i'm guessing you didnt watch the video.

[obamaismyuncle]

Cashmoney, I agree "Not everyone is an unwed ghetto mother who has 6 kids by 6 different baby daddies!" I kinda took it a bit off topic, but my point is and what pisses me off more than anything in this country is people having kids that can't afford them, mostly young women. After these kids pop out, they can't be shoved back in, then it becomes our problem as a country to support them, because you can't take it out on the kids, they can't help the poor decisions the parents made.

Just like the welfare system, welfare was made for the ones who can't support themselves, not the ones who don't. If a single mother is working a fulltime job and still can't make ends meet then give her welfare.

[losturmarbles]

Government theft, American-style

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=71517

quote
Edgar K. Browning, professor of economics at Texas A&M University, has a new book aptly titled "Stealing from Each Other." Its subtitle, "How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit," goes to the heart of what the book is about. The rise of equalitarian ideology has driven Americans to steal from one another. Browning explains that certain kinds of equality have been a cherished value in America. Equality under the law and, within reason, equality of opportunity is consistent with a free society. Equality of results is an anathema to a free society and within it lie the seeds of tyranny.

Browning entertains a discussion about when inequalities are just or unjust. For example, college graduates earn income higher than high-school dropouts. Some people prefer to work many hours and earn more than others who prefer to work fewer. Students who spend 25 or more hours a week on classroom preparation earn higher grades than students who spend five hours. Most would agree that these inequalities are just. There are other sources of inequalities that are unjust, such as: when incomes result from fraud, corruption, stealing, exploitation, oppression and the like. Such sources of inequality play an insignificant role in producing income inequality in America. Most economists agree that income is closely related to productivity.

Much of the justification for the welfare state is to reduce income inequality by making income transfers to the poor. Browning provides some statistics that might help us to evaluate the sincerity and truthfulness of this claim. In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That's larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four.

Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care. The question that naturally arises is if we're spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty? The obvious answer is poor people are not receiving all the money being spent in their name. Non-poor people are getting the bulk of it.

Browning's concluding chapter tells us what the welfare state costs us. He acknowledges the non-economic costs such as infringements on liberty and strains on the political process, but focuses on the quantitative economic costs. The disincentive effects of Social Security have reduced the GDP by 10 percent, the federal income tax (as opposed to a proportional tax) by 9 percent and past deficits by 3.5 percent for a total of 22.5 percent. He guesses that welfare programs have reduced GDP by 2.5 percent. The overall effect of redistributionist policies has created incentives that have reduced GDP by a total of 25 percent. Without those, our GDP would be close to $18 trillion instead of $14 trillion.

So what's Browning's solution? First, he reminds us of the biblical admonition "Thou shalt not steal." Government income redistribution programs produce the same result as theft. In fact, that's what a thief does; he redistributes income. The difference between government and thievery is mostly a matter of legality. Browning's solution is captured in the title of his last chapter, "Just Say No," where he proposes, "The federal government shall not adopt any policies that transfer income (resources) from some Americans to other Americans." He agrees with James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

For years I've used professor Browning's and his colleague Mark A. Zupan's excellent textbook "Microeconomics: Price Theory and Applications" in my intermediate microeconomics class. "Stealing from Each Other" is a continuation of his academic excellence.
/quote

[bettilimbroke999]

i'm guessing you didnt watch the video.

Several of Friedman's arguments are pure trash, minimum wage doesn't cause anyone to be unemployed is he fukin kidding, I've looked for jobs before as a teenager and it never took me more than a week to get a shit minimum or very near minimum wage job (sometimes theyd toss in an extra quarter an hour or some joke to make themselves feel good which amounted to an extra 5 bucks a week )

A stronger argument could be that the minimum wage doesnt give the worker any incentive to work versus taking advantage of welfare programs that will decline if he pulls in 15k full-time burger flipping or floor mopping.

[DwightShrute]

i'm guessing you didnt watch the video.

Of course he didn't

Once you present fact or logical thinking to the left wing loons, they act like a vampire would when exposed to daylight

[losturmarbles]

Several of Friedman's arguments are pure trash, minimum wage doesn't cause anyone to be unemployed is he fukin kidding, I've looked for jobs before as a teenager and it never took me more than a week to get a shit minimum or very near minimum wage job (sometimes theyd toss in an extra quarter an hour or some joke to make themselves feel good which amounted to an extra 5 bucks a week )

A stronger argument could be that the minimum wage doesnt give the worker any incentive to work versus taking advantage of welfare programs that will decline if he pulls in 15k full-time burger flipping or floor mopping.

the only people that make minimum wage in this country is 1. those with no work experience and 2. those that have made poor decisions in life.

paying someone $8/hr that is only worth $5/hr means the employer is going to end up paying some worth actually $20/hr maybe a couple bucks above minimum wage.


Minimum Wage—Maximum Nonsense by Benjamin Powell
Minimum wage laws hurt the low-skilled workers they are intended to help. Raising the minimum wage hurts these workers even more. No matter how many ways economists say it, politicians, even those supposedly sympathetic to free markets, are content to peddle this harmful policy again and again. California’s Democrat-dominated Assembly and Senate and its Republican Governor Schwarzenegger are the latest culprits pandering this economic nonsense.
California’s legislature passed a bill that would raise the minimum wage from its current level of $6.75 per hour to $7.75 per hour over the next two years. The bill also mandates automatic yearly wage increases tied to the rate of inflation. In 2004 Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have hiked the wage by $1, but now he favors the increase and is only opposed to future automatic increases. But whether tied to the rate of inflation or not, when the minimum wage is increased low-skilled workers lose.
Deep down everybody knows it. We all know that if the government raised the minimum wage by $20 an hour, many employees would be laid off. Businesses are not charities; they hire workers only when the workers create more revenue for the business than they cost in wages and compensation. We know that many workers’ productivity is less than $26.75 an hour and that they would be laid off if the minimum wage were that high. Yet people kid themselves when they believe smaller increases won’t harm employment.
Some workers, particularly teenagers in part-time jobs, have very low productivity that makes it unprofitable to pay them more than $6.75 an hour. For these workers the politicians’ proposed 15 percent increase in the minimum wage will mean unemployment. In 2004 the Employment Policy Institute studied the impact of raising California’s minimum wage by $1. They found that approximately 18,600 Californians would lose their jobs and in the process would miss out on $220 million in total income.
Governor Schwarzenegger should know that increasing the minimum wage hurts young low-skilled workers. He claims Milton Friedman is one of the two economists that most influenced his thinking on economics and that he even gives people Friedman’s economic primer “Free to Choose” as a Christmas present. If he remembers reading the book he should recall that Friedman writes, “The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws.”
One need not look only to economists known for supporting free markets to find opponents of the minimum wage. Paul Samuelson, a strongly left-leaning Nobel Prize winning economist from MIT, wrote in 1970, “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2 an hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?”
Youths, minority youths in particular, are hardest hit by minimum wage laws because often they have not yet built up the skills to be profitably employed at higher wages. Many work part-time while in school. Others have just entered the workforce and are acquiring skills on the job that will help them earn higher wages in the future. Studies reflect this when they find that only 20 percent of all minimum wage earners are single earners who are heads of households. Unfortunately, by making would-be workers unemployed early in their lives, minimum wage laws undermine the very process of on-the-job learning that eventually leads to higher wages.
Minimum wage laws may hurt low-skilled workers, but they benefit union workers. Virtually no union worker earns the minimum wage, so how do they benefit? Minimum wage laws enhance the demand for union workers by unemploying their low-cost, low-skilled competitors. It is no accident that unions and their politicians are often the biggest supporters of increasing the minimum wage. But it’s dishonest for them to claim they support increasing the minimum wage for the benefit of the poor.
Governor Schwarzenegger should veto any minimum wage increase, whether it’s tied to inflation or not. If he’s really interested in strengthening our economy and helping low-skilled workers earn more income, he should pursue policies that enhance our productivity. As our economy expands, a free and competitive labor market will ensure that workers earn as much as possible.

[bettilimbroke999]

More like gives the employer the ability to pay someone slave wage of 8 bucks an hour 5 bucks an hour, keep the 20/hour worker at 10 bucks an hour and pocket the extra 3 bucks an hour he saved

Look there's no doubt that Friedman is a genius and you'd have to be a fool to disagree with much of what he has to say, but several of his points are flat out wrong, estimating that only 5% of retirees are in need of social security to support themselves or medicare to supply their health insurance is ridiculous, hell we've got a higher percentage than that that cant even support themselves that are miles from retirement age, that's existing at their physical and mental peaks to work along with much lower insurance costs, we're too assume as they fall apart and their insurance costs skyrocket that their ability to support themselves will increase

[losturmarbles]

More like gives the employer the ability to pay someone slave wage of 8 bucks an hour 5 bucks an hour, keep the 20/hour worker at 10 bucks an hour and pocket the extra 3 bucks an hour he saved

Look there's no doubt that Friedman is a genius and you'd have to be a fool to disagree with much of what he has to say, but several of his points are flat out wrong, estimating that only 5% of retirees are in need of social security to support themselves or medicare to supply their health insurance is ridiculous, hell we've got a higher percentage than that that cant even support themselves that are miles from retirement age, that's existing at their physical and mental peaks to work along with much lower insurance costs, we're too assume as they fall apart and their insurance costs skyrocket that their ability to support themselves will increase

so you mean after 3/4 of a century of social security, there has been an increase of % of people that actually need social security?
you mean the program has actually had a negative effect from it's original intentions?

i think youre affirming what friedman already said.

judge govt programs by their results, not their intentions.

[bettilimbroke999]

so you mean after 3/4 of a century of social security, there has been an increase of % of people that actually need social security?
you mean the program has actually had a negative effect from it's original intentions?

i think youre affirming what friedman already said.

judge govt programs by their results, not their intentions.

Well it says it was filmed in 1975, though I have no idea why its in black and white

I simply think Friedman's 5% estimation in 75' was off by quite a bit, hell our unemployment rate right now is twice that, hard to bellieve that they're saving enough to pay for their retirement and insurance when they dont even have any income. I can imagine someone not retiring and supporting themselves into their 70s and having their insurance maintained by employer or retiring and neglecting medical services but I have trouble believing 95% are fully secured for retirement and insurance costs for the last 20 years of their life when he said this. Maybe 95% of the ppl Friedman hung around but not 95% of the nation especially considering most of even the financially successful citizens have lost half their retirement savings in the last couple years due to the market crash

[losturmarbles]

Well it says it was filmed in 1975, though I have no idea why its in black and white

I simply think Friedman's 5% estimation in 75' was off by quite a bit, hell our unemployment rate right now is twice that, hard to bellieve that they're saving enough to pay for their retirement and insurance when they dont even have any income. I can imagine someone not retiring and supporting themselves into their 70s and having their insurance maintained by employer or retiring and neglecting medical services but I have trouble believing 95% are fully secured for retirement and insurance costs for the last 20 years of their life when he said this

he was speaking hypothetically in a world without social security. and his hypothesis is based on the history before the great depression.

if people weren't encouraged and indoctrinated from a young age to have a dependent mentality, i would guess the amount would be less than 1%.

here is the transcript of what you are referring to:

HEFFNER: Professor Friedman, I would like to ask you what you mean by "in the hands of the people" -- you use that -*

FRIEDMAN: I mean you and me, I mean the people who pay the taxes, who finance the activities which government engages in. If I take Social Security, I mean instead of having a tax of something like 12% -- not quite that -- on every worker up to a maximum limit, it's regressive. Instead of having that tax, if I let him have that money himself, he would be able to invest it in a program for his own old age, which would yield him greater benefits than on the average he can get from the amount that he is now paying.

HEFFNER: Suppose we grant that and say that that's absolutely true -- no question about that -- aren't we in a position though of looking back as responsible people to the point at which we had to recognize that many individuals were not doing this?

15:00

FRIEDMAN: That's a misconception, I believe, of what the historical circumstance was. There is no doubt that in the Great Depression of the '30's many people were not able to take care of themselves. Lots of them. But that wasn't because they hadn't been prudent, hadn't saved, because there was a real problem providing for old age. That was because of the catastrophe called the Great Depression which was itself produced by government mismanagement. The Great Depression didn't arise out of any natural flaw in the system. It arose because some wise men sitting around in Washington and down here on Wall Street in New York decided to follow policies which reduced the quantity of money by a third over four years, which drove this country into an utterly unnecessary depression. Now, given the conditions you were in '33, given that the mistake had been made, I have no doubt that major social action was called for. And I really have no criticism to make of the emergency action which was undertaken at that time in the form of WPA, PWA direct relief. I think you had to do it at that time, given the state you were in. But Social Security isn't one of those things. And I do not believe it can be demonstrated that in the absence of Social Security, any large number of elderly people would be unable to provide for themselves. But let's look at that a little farther. Suppose that 5% of the elderly would not be able to provide for themselves. Does it make sense to impose a program on 100% of the people in order to do something about 5%? Does that really make sense? You see, that's the great defect in this line of thinking -- is that the ideas that have been behind the direction we've been going in, is that the people are children who have to be looked after by their paternal -- by the intelligent intellectuals and governmental officials who can take care of them. Big Brother is in Washington, and he has to look after people. Now, I think it's Big Brother who has to be looked after, and not the people.

[bettilimbroke999]

So social security is a bad thing, I mean the 95% that could support themselves will hate getting a fat check every month, I dont get it?

[betplom]

Suppose that 5% of the elderly would not be able to provide for themselves. Does it make sense to impose a program on 100% of the people in order to do something about 5%?

Perhaps this same principle could be applied to funding the fire department, I doubt more than 5% of all homes actually burn down.

Why provide full funding for the fire department when such a small percentage of homeownerss actually ever need them to put out a fire?

[losturmarbles]

Perhaps this same principle could be applied to funding the fire department, I doubt more than 5% of all homes actually burn down.

Why provide full funding for the fire department when such a small percentage of homeownerss actually ever need them to put out a fire?

perhaps so. oh wait it already is. ever heard of volunteer fire departments? theyre all over the place here, of course i live in a mostly rural area.

youre crossing over into what the role of government is. plundering from one person to give to another isn't. protecting life and property is.

if you want to make a fair comparison, how about the government plunder 10% of all income to buy home insurance for everyone. after your house is burned out, how are you going to fix it without home insurance? and where are you going to live at unless the government provides you a place?

[bettilimbroke999]

perhaps so. oh wait it already is. ever heard of volunteer fire departments? theyre all over the place here, of course i live in a mostly rural area.

youre crossing over into what the role of government is. plundering from one person to give to another isn't. protecting life and property is.

if you want to make a fair comparison, how about the government plunder 10% of all income to buy home insurance for everyone. after your house is burned out, how are you going to fix it without home insurance? and where are you going to live at unless the government provides you a place?

Dont mortgage lenders require homeowner's insurance?

Isn't access to health care protecting your life?

[losturmarbles]

Dont mortgage lenders require homeowner's insurance?

Isn't access to health care protecting your life?

pmi

is health care being denied in life threatening situations?

[betplom]

perhaps so. oh wait it already is. ever heard of volunteer fire departments? theyre all over the place here, of course i live in a mostly rural area.

youre crossing over into what the role of government is. plundering from one person to give to another isn't. protecting life and property is.

if you want to make a fair comparison, how about the government plunder 10% of all income to buy home insurance for everyone. after your house is burned out, how are you going to fix it without home insurance? and where are you going to live at unless the government provides you a place?

When NYC and Los Angeles switch to volunteer fire departments your argument will be valid.

Again, Americans seem to want to argue about health care & the role of government more than actually wanting to do something about it.

Whats wrong with trying to make a go of socialized health care and attempt to improve it instead of arguing about how wrong it is? You could scrap it if it doesn't work, so far there seems to be no interest in even making an attempt.

The American attitude of I'll look after me and fukk everyone else is truly amazing, the arguments for helping people get turned into jealousy over what poor people will get at the expense of the more well off citizens.

Too often the USA (and the neanderthal attitudes of some) is amazing, all for the wrong reasons.

[bettilimbroke999]

pmi

is health care being denied in life threatening situations?

So being uninsured makes no difference at all lost, millions of Americans are just blowing hundreds of dollars a month for the hell of it

We should just eliminate health insurance altogether since if we ever are about to die we can go to the emergency room, just skip preventative care, dental care, therapy after the emergency room, prescriptions, checkups, etc. etc. etc.

Also just for the record if you have absolutely any assets the hospital will come after them following your "free insurance" emergency room visit so you better be flat fukin broke or you will be when they get done with you and you will in all likelihood forced into bankruptcy after the hospital turns your bill over to collections as hospital emergency rooms are by far the most expensive care in an already outrageously expensive health care system

[bettilimbroke999]

[ATTACH]7964[/ATTACH]

[BadNina]

It says life. It says nothing about health care. That is up to the individuals. That is each person's responsibility. I do whatever I need to do to provide for myself and my family. If it had to come down to it, then I give up stuff for them. Like internet. My cellphone. My pretty SUV. My mani/pedis. When I see some woman on tv griping about how hard she has it and needs the GOVERNMENT to take care of her with her acrylic nails on her wringing hands, I throw tihngs at the tv. People need to do for themselves and their own families and stop expecting everyone to do it for them. Now that isn't to say if I need someone in need that I don't help. But no one should expect it. That mentality is the biggest bunch of poo poo.

[DwightShrute]

....

[bettilimbroke999]

Women are for sex and cooking not for political debate Nina, women dont need money they simply need to hit the gym if they want a guy to pay for everything for them

There is virtually no difference between life and health care, what do you think ppl go to the hospital for a party? They do it bc theyd prefer not to suffer and die

Women are not allowed in my threads anymore they do not possess any form of logical reasoning which is why they can kill anyone or commit crimes and get a month in jail for what guys would get the death penalty for, it has been legally proven they are mentally incompetent

[clonecat]

Several of Friedman's arguments are pure trash, minimum wage doesn't cause anyone to be unemployed is he fukin kidding, I've looked for jobs before as a teenager and it never took me more than a week to get a shit minimum or very near minimum wage job (sometimes theyd toss in an extra quarter an hour or some joke to make themselves feel good which amounted to an extra 5 bucks a week )

A stronger argument could be that the minimum wage doesnt give the worker any incentive to work versus taking advantage of welfare programs that will decline if he pulls in 15k full-time burger flipping or floor mopping.

What you are supporting is the problem. Why should someone work when the government will take care of them. Many people work just for the health insurance. Once they dont have to work to have health insurance, social security will really be broke.

[losturmarbles]

When NYC and Los Angeles switch to volunteer fire departments your argument will be valid.

Again, Americans seem to want to argue about health care & the role of government more than actually wanting to do something about it.

Whats wrong with trying to make a go of socialized health care and attempt to improve it instead of arguing about how wrong it is? You could scrap it if it doesn't work, so far there seems to be no interest in even making an attempt.

The American attitude of I'll look after me and fukk everyone else is truly amazing, the arguments for helping people get turned into jealousy over what poor people will get at the expense of the more well off citizens.

Too often the USA (and the neanderthal attitudes of some) is amazing, all for the wrong reasons.

guess you havent been paying attention to all the city shutdowns and cutbacks. no money.

i wish people would argue about the role of government. doesnt happen. republicans are fine with government overstepping as long as they score political points with it. but i'd be glad to do something about it. you can start by passing the FairTax and repealing the 16th amendment.

what's wrong with making a go of everybody getting off the government tit. you work for your money, you make $1000, you take home $1000. if you need to buy insurance you buy insurance. btw our current system is a health payment system, not insurance. you dont make a claim on your auto insurance when you change your oil. if government got out of the system, where there could be competition, then the people could shop for the best price, or best service, or whatever. it would be them spending their own money, and nobody else's.

the american attitude of freedom and liberty? yeah that's been the exception in the history of the world, not the rule. so what makes politicians more virtuous in your eyes than someone wanting to be self responsible? what makes government thievery so praiseworthy or even ethical?

[bettilimbroke999]

What you are supporting is the problem. Why should someone work when the government will take care of them. Many people work just for the health insurance. Once they dont have to work to have health insurance, social security will really be broke.

I know this and perhaps a requirement of working to be on welfare should be made, I am all for that, no one who is able but unwilling to work should be allowed welfare

[losturmarbles]

I know this and perhaps a requirement of working to be on welfare should be made, I am all for that, no one who is able but unwilling to work should be allowed welfare

sounds like you would be a fan of serfdom

[BadNina]

Bless your pointy little head. I see the mention of SSI went straight through it and hit nothing. There are programs in place. You tell me where the money for this is going to come from. You tell me chow this will improve medical care. Show me how this will improve the quality of life as we know it.

[bettilimbroke999]

Listen I have been painted as a far-left wing lunatic but Im far from that, I consider myself middle of the road to conservative, I understand we cant have a nation of ppl living off the govt and am against ppl unnecessarily getting govt benefits but and lsten bc I am applying this to the working poor, it is nearly impossible to raise a family making 8 bucks an hour regardless of how hard working you are without any govt assistance, now should you have a family if you're only making 8 bucks an hour FUKING HELL NO. I dont make much money and as a result I dont have children as that would be beyond my means, I can support myself but Id be unable to support a family

Now does that mean no poor ppl will have children just bc its a bad idea for them to do so, of course not and now theyve put themselves in a situation where they are unable to earn enough money to support their family with what I consider basic needs housing, food, health care so I feel that the govt should give them some assistance, if they are hardworking and this country really allows progress then perhaps someday theyll dig themselves out of their hole, do I think that an individual can work for 8 bucks an hour and support himself, yes I do, there should be an income line separating individuals and those with dependents from receiving welfare and an income REQUIREMENT to attaining welfare so that they cant just sit on their ass watching HBO for the rest of their life while milking the govt dry and sinking the country

[BadNina]

So you want jobs that pay better? What incentive is there for anyone to start up a business to put people to work? The main objective of business is to make money. But when they do that they are painted as villians, as having taken something from other people.

[losturmarbles]

bettill we dont live in a vacuum. and the govt is a faux safety net.

[BadNina]

One of our representatives here held a town hall meeting. He said over 77% of his constituents are against it. That means his job to do as they say and say no. That is what all of the Congressment and women are suppose to do. Listen to the people that they are suppose to be speaking for and do as they want. I do believe some form of this is going to pass and we are screwed. But I also think that those taht vote against what their constituents want are in deep doo when reelection comes around. No one likes a smart ass basically telling you "I'm smarted than you ."