The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[QuagmireMcGuire]

We don't have socialized medicine for a bloody reason! UHC is just another step toward a socialized/communist government. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and many other countries that have UHC are or on the road to being communist. Does communism/socialism work? No! Look at the Pilgrims they had a socialized government at first and within two years they had to scratch it, because it didn't work. No one wanted to work hard when they knew that their labor was just as much for a lazy bum as it was for them. Russia: Joseph Stalin's plans for communism worked great. The great Soviet Union is now a pile of rotting crap (trust me I have had to live with 2 people from Russia for 2 months :icon_rage). Red China: what more do I need to say. Germany: how many millions have died from Hitler's brand of communism, Nazism? Venezuela: would you really want some like Hugo Chavez (i.e. Hilary Clinton) to run this country. Communism and Socialism don't work; they never have and never will. If you don't believe me then read history. Why on earth would you want to use a system that has caused/is causing the down fall of many modern nations?

Let's not use the Pilgrims to prove a point, shall we. In today's society, we don't rely on trade and barter amongst families in order to suppliment our needs. Most people do not raise their own food. Most people possess access to transportation. Our society has evolved tremendously over the centuries; we rely upon others to provide our food, build our homes, and pay our wages. Point being, today's society is not as self-reliant as the Pilgrims and we live in a society based upon selfishness; no one wishes to depart from a system which allows for them to have five cars, three homes, and two Yorkies. We don't need to have 10 kids to produce labor. We can save and spend as freely as we want. Now that we've acquired a taste of the good life, this attitude will never change; people will never support giving up these personal acquisitions.

Saying that, my ability to receive cancer treatment should not be placed upon the same level as those five cars, three homes, and two Yorkies.

 

[Huggy Bear]

Both of those examples are regulatory in nature...regulating my health and forcing the general populace to pay for that is ricockulous.

So you are fine with the fact that health care costs have quadrupled in the past decade and we americans pay more for medicine than the rest of the planet? Sounds like we could use more regulation and less attitude of "I got mine, screw the rest of you".

 

[ChunksJR]

The truth of the matter is that most individuals aren't as charitable as we should be.

Who says this? Is it the government's right to regulate how charitable we should be??? Or whether or not I pay for other's care???? HELL NO.

I do find this to be a problem with our society; especially a society that speaks so strenously on the advantages of living a moral and just lifestyle.

A journey of a million miles starts with a single step. If you choose to be a hermit who cares about no one, well, that is the great thing about America...you can do that. Is it wrong? Legally, no...should you make it illegal? God help us if you think the answer to the latter is yes.

This same theory can be applied with the military; as long as there are healthy, young males who are willing to sacrifice their lives for my benefit, why should I exert myself into peril by joining up?

This is a great arguement for a draft...which I don't want. I enjoy the decision that I made...and enjoy sacrificing my time/rights for the rest of this great country who provides protection to those who don't give a damn for it.

The government exists to protect the RIGHTS OF THE people it serves. This protection should NOT extend to protecting their lives beyond police and military protection.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[ChunksJR]

So you are fine with the fact that health care costs have quadrupled in the past decade and we americans pay more for medicine than the rest of the planet? Sounds like we could use more regulation and less attitude of "I got mine, screw the rest of you".

No, I CHOOSE mine...if you don't want to pay for it...than screw the rest of you...

Also, despite the price, we still have one of the longest life expectancies in the world...a statistic that implys that the blanket the government provides to your health is, already too successful and extensive enough, to compare to the rest of the world's socialism to America's.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

Let's not use the Pilgrims to prove a point, shall we. In today's society, we don't rely on trade and barter amongst families in order to suppliment our needs. Most people do not raise their own food. Most people possess access to transportation. Our society has evolved tremendously over the centuries; we rely upon others to provide our food, build our homes, and pay our wages. Point being, today's society is not as self-reliant as the Pilgrims and we live in a society based upon selfishness; no one wishes to depart from a system which allows for them to have five cars, three homes, and two Yorkies. We don't need to have 10 kids to produce labor. We can save and spend as freely as we want. Now that we've acquired a taste of the good life, this attitude will never change; people will never support giving up these personal acquisitions.

Saying that, my ability to receive cancer treatment should not be placed upon the same level as those five cars, three homes, and two Yorkies.

economy is economy is economy I don't care if you lived in 100 B.C. or 1950 communism doesn't work and UHC is part of communism.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Who says this? Is it the government's right to regulate how charitable we should be??? Or whether or not I pay for other's care???? HELL NO.



A journey of a million miles starts with a single step. If you choose to be a hermit who cares about no one, well, that is the great thing about America...you can do that. Is it wrong? Legally, no...should you make it illegal? God help us if you think the answer to the latter is yes.



This is a great arguement for a draft...which I don't want. I enjoy the decision that I made...and enjoy sacrificing my time/rights for the rest of this great country who provides protection to those who don't give a damn for it.



Fixed it for ya.

So, let's get to the nitty gritty: outside of increased taxed, why do you not want to help an individual unable to help themselves?

Why grant freedom to a people who were unable to take it? Why protect the weak from the bully if they were unable to protect themselves?

I won't hand over my car to a homeless person on the street. I am also inclined not to give a person that dollar so they can "go buy a bowl of rice." I am inclined to help the woman who trips over the crack or the elderly woman who is disorientated. Perhaps it is philosphical and fundamental differences but I believe if you take from this society then you have an obligation to give back to it; if I see someone in need and I am able to offer assistance then I will. If I see someone being mugged, I might not jump on the mugger's back but, by gawt, I will scream, raise awareness, and call the police.

Our government and laws already fosters being a "Good Samaritan" which is why their are laws protecting individuals committing good acts and why their are tax benefits for those who share their wealth. Creating a system which promotes a healthy individual may very well lead to a healthier society.

 

[BACONATOR]

All you need to do is look at the health-care program(s) in Canada and you then slap your forehead with the realization of how truly stupid it is to have universal healthcare.

 

[FLYTPAY]

We don't have socialized medicine for a bloody reason! UHC is just another step toward a socialized/communist government. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and many other countries that have UHC are (or on the road to being) communist. Does communism/socialism work? No! Look at the Pilgrims they had a socialized government at first and within two years they had to scratch it, because it didn't work. No one wanted to work hard when they knew that their labor was just as much for a lazy bum as it was for them. Russia: Joseph Stalin's plans for communism worked great(NOT); the great Soviet Union is now a pile of rotting crap (trust me I have had to live with 2 people from Russia for 2 months :icon_rage). Red China: what more do I need to say. Germany: how many millions have died from Hitler's brand of communism, Nazism? Venezuela: would you really want some like Hugo Chavez (i.e. Hilary Clinton) to run this country. Communism and Socialism don't work; they never have and never will. If you don't believe me then read history. Why on earth would you want to use a system that has caused/is causing the down fall of many nations?

+1 The great thing about capitalism is the dangling carrot of oppurtunities we have here! ANYONE can become wealthy or successul. I saw a John Stossel piece on "Greed" and if it is bad. Is being greedy in business bad....hell no....its only bad at a casino!....A perception of "greed" or always wanting more or better is the driving spirit behind capitalism and what has made our country what it is. It is behind cancer and drug research...else why would a company invest money into the research if they could not profit. Capitalism and oppurtunity is the root of technology, finding better and more efficient ways to do something, and perpetuating ongoing advancement of society. Thank God for capitalism about the time Caveman was inventing wheel, if he had stopped at the square design, we would not be on a forum called AW. During the Great Depression, if you did not work......junior did not eat....end of story. This forced the people at the time to be resourceful, hard-working, and successful out of necessity and not charity. I stopped giving to "poor" person charities years ago. I simply will not do it. I donate clothes every year to Goodwill, I donate to Tailhook, and I donate to Cancer research. Why should I have to be more charitable through my taxes to lazy pieces of shit that are just fine with taking my hard-earned paycheck (perpetual flight student but stick with me here). Have some pride and get out there and work.....don;t confuse having pride for not being able to work at McD's. I am the type of person that HATES owing a penny to anyone. It gets under my skin if I am indebted to someone. Therefore I work my ass off so that I am never in that position. :icon_rage

 

[Son of a Grunt]

Are we actually going in the direction of saying: "if you are too lazy to work then you don't deserve to be healthy or live."

If your life isn't important enough for you to save yourself then why should I be required by law to save you? You do have the right to liberty. As someone's sig says, "Everyone has two basic rights: the right to do what ever he damn well pleases and the right to take the consequences of his actions."

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

No, I CHOOSE mine...if you don't want to pay for it...than screw the rest of you...

Also, despite the price, we still have one of the longest life expectancies in the world...a statistic that implys that the blanket the government provides to your health is, already too successful and extensive enough, to compare to the rest of the world's socialism to America's.

We have the highest infant mortality rate and lowest life expectancy in comparison to twenty other industrialized nations yet we spend twice as much.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12699453/

"Our health care system focuses on providing high-tech services for complicated cases. We do this very well,” Thorpe said. “What we do not do is provide basic primary and preventive health care services. We do not pay for these services, and do not have a delivery system that is designed to provide either primary prevention, or adequately treat patients with chronic diseases.”

 

[ChunksJR]

So, let's get to the nitty gritty: outside of increased taxed, why do you not want to help an individual unable to help themselves?

I do want to help. I shall resist the government TELLING me to because I don't feel that that's protecting MY rights.

Why grant freedom to a people who were unable to take it?

Freedom = free to choose whether or not to help, right? If you/the goverment tells me to help, either by giving time or money, is that freedom?

Why protect the weak from the bully if they were unable to protect themselves?

They are able to protect themselves...it's called insurance. HOWEVER, YOU must decide what protection level/cost you want. For instance, you are required to have a minimum auto insurance policy...that does not, include the medical coverage if you are injured in a wreck.

So, YOU get in a wreck that is YOUR fault and YOU declined that medical coverage. Now, the guy YOU wrecked with would have to pay YOUR medical bills that resulted from YOUR carelessness. See my point? It was YOUR action that resulted in UHC paying for YOU. You made a choice to deny the medical coverage in the insurance to save a few dollars and end up with more benefits than you are entitled to.

I won't hand over my car to a homeless person on the street. I am also inclined not to give a person that dollar so they can "go buy a bowl of rice." I am inclined to help the woman who trips over the crack or the elderly woman who is disorientated. Perhaps it is philosphical and fundamental differences but I believe if you take from this society then you have an obligation to give back to it; if I see someone in need and I am able to offer assistance then I will. If I see someone being mugged, I might not jump on the mugger's back but, by gawt, I will scream, raise awareness, and call the police.

See you and I are alike, because I would do the same. But that's the individual choice that makes you feel better about yourself. If you were required to provide that assistance by law, I would argue that it would take your sense of pride away...so by regulating assistance, the government has taken the joy you feel by being a good dood.

Creating a system which promotes a healthy individual may very well lead to a healthier society.

Sure, like the countries of Europe have done...most of which have lower life expectancies than the US.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

If your life isn't important enough for you to save yourself then why should I be required by law to save you? You do have the right to liberty. As someone's sig says, "Everyone has two basic rights: the right to do what ever he damn well pleases and the right to take the consequences of his actions."

Applying the same logic, if your education isn't important enough for you to educate yourself then why should I be required by law to pay for your education? And I do, if you take out any student loans or have a kid in K-12. So you better be getting all As and going to every class on time and prepared, or I want you to pay me back, directly and immediately.

Our government has already taken the position of taking from the individual to benefit the society; we do this with funds to public arts, public parks, education, and so forth. How can we seriously advocate for the advancement of intellect on an individual level yet turn our back on addressing their health care needs?

 

[Hozer]

So, let's get to the nitty gritty: outside of increased taxed, why do you not want to help an individual unable to help themselves?

Why grant freedom to a people who were unable to take it? Why protect the weak from the bully if they were unable to protect themselves?

I won't hand over my car to a homeless person on the street. I am also inclined not to give a person that dollar so they can "go buy a bowl of rice." I am inclined to help the woman who trips over the crack or the elderly woman who is disorientated. Perhaps it is philosphical and fundamental differences but I believe if you take from this society then you have an obligation to give back to it; if I see someone in need and I am able to offer assistance then I will. If I see someone being mugged, I might not jump on the mugger's back but, by gawt, I will scream, raise awareness, and call the police.

Our government and laws already fosters being a "Good Samaritan" which is why their are laws protecting individuals committing good acts and why their are tax benefits for those who share their wealth. Creating a system which promotes a healthy individual may very well lead to a healthier society.

The War on Poverty has been going on for over 40 years, yet the poverty rate has remained basically constant.
Billions of dollars have been dropped into that black hole.
Your notion of wanting to help those in need is admirable. Right now, that's a relatively miniscule portion of society.
What happens when, maybe not in this generation, that people come to expect and abuse a UHC system because it's taken for granted?
Why would anyone make lifestyle changes for reasons of health if health care is free? And don't pretend that there would be any "penalties" for poor habits.


The solution? Pay as you go. No HMO's. Yes, it would be a painful adjustment. But the market would adjust prices accordingly. How many people are involved in the medical billing and insurance industry? What if you, shudder to think it, paid at the doctor's office?

 

[Son of a Grunt]

Applying the same logic, if your education isn't important enough for you to educate yourself then why should I be required by law to pay for your education? And I do, if you take out any student loans or have a kid in K-12. So you better be getting all As and going to every class on time and prepared, or I want you to pay me back, directly and immediately.

Our government has already taken the position of taking from the individual to benefit the society; we do this with funds to public arts, public parks, education, and so forth. How can we seriously advocate for the advancement of intellect on an individual level yet turn our back on addressing their health care needs?

My school doesn't get a penny in government funding because I am homeschooled. Hence my parents have to pay for their kid's schooling and everyone else's'.

 

[Hozer]

Applying the same logic, if your education isn't important enough for you to educate yourself then why should I be required by law to pay for your education? And I do, if you take out any student loans or have a kid in K-12. So you better be getting all As and going to every class on time and prepared, or I want you to pay me back, directly and immediately.

Thanks for making my case AGAINST public education and Dept. of Education.
Another shocker, pay as you go.