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

[goosegagnon2]

I broke the lower portion of my ankle during high school, went to a German Hospital and waited 2 and a 1/2 hours waiting to even SEE the doctor.

Nevermind the swelling and massise brusies that were showing up. Then when I was finally operated on and had a 7 in plate and 6 or so screws in my leg I got jack shit for pain relief, not even an asprin or something simple like percoset.

screw socialized healthcare.

Think of it this way: Remember you're last trip to the DMV or the last time you had to deal with the IRS. Now make your healthcare the same. I don't want that! And I sure as hell don't want to pay for it either.

amen.

 

[ChunksJR]

The founders wrote the Bill of Rights as not a bestowment of rights from the government to the people; instead, the statement serves to solidify the basic rights we each inherit simply because we are born human. These are basic and fundamental rights that we were written as a promise from the government to the people- that they will strive to protect and insure that each individual's rights will not be impeded.

With that in mind, I can't fathom how our society does not support a universal health care system.

Well, with all that in mind, I can't fathom how our society COULD support a universal health care system.

Since when has a "NICE TO HAVE" been a "RIGHT TO HAVE?" Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...how dare the government regulate the latter by giving me health care that you have to pay for...and vice versa.

Especially as I choose not to smoke (unless drinking heavily) why should I pay for the morphine smokers will need to stay "comfortable" at the end?...and I don't think it's fair for you to pay for my liver replacement that I'll inevidably (sp??) need by my 32nd Bday...

2 of the MULTITUDE of reasons NOT to support that $hit.

~D

 

[FLYTPAY]

SOCIALIST/socialized medicine......it is a bunch of crap! Time for me to vent on lazy leeches of society. My wife is a pharmacist and routinely is complained to by government assistance receiving people who complain that they have to pay $2 for a prescription.....gimme a freaking break! Then you have government assistance receiving people that have substance problems and even have more kids because they do not have to pay for it. I do nto believe that a child should ever be denied health care....that is plain wrong. But some sort of motivator to lazy leeches must be made to make them get off of public assitance. The intent of the program is not to give someone a free ride, but it is to give subsistence to someone in a time of need so that they can become self-suffient again. This brings me to the point of illegal workers here in the US. If you would have asked me several years ago, I would have said to crack down and deport them all because they take jobs away from Americans. Now, I think that if they come here, work hard, and do not make trouble, there needs to be some sort of other consideration. If you have to go work at McD's to put food on the table......do it, you are not above that.....you are on welfare dammit! I do not like self-pitying people who are lazy and won't take a "menial" job to make ends meet.:icon_rage

This is why the waiting line in ER's tend to be so long, if someone who can't afford a doctor gets sick, they go to the one place where they can't be refused treatment. Then everyone else who can afford treatment pays the bill of those who can't.

And dies in line waiting!

Some have suggested a Government with a mandate of " .... take from each according to their abilities; Give to each according to their needs". Would not that be a nice place to live?

Welcome to the USSR.

 

[Huggy Bear]

I don't remember seeing "the right for the government to pay for your medical care" OR even "the right to get medical care" anywhere in the bill of rights.

1, like he just said, it already costs so much dang money that it will cripple us to implement, unless we seriously reform the system,

2, people don't take really good care of themselves and I don't want to be the one to foot the bill for the medical problems they develop because of it.

You also do not see the right to get free streetlight, paved streets, public schooling through grade 12, a police and a fire department. Yet, the government still provides you those services through your tax dollars. What does this issue have to do with the bill of rights?

Your point 1) Of course it will raise taxes and needs to be well organized. We could start by managing pharmaceuticals and their outrageous prices. Not everything needs to be for profit, and healthcare is one area where profits should not be a factor.

2) Even healthy people have unforseen issues and accidents affect their health. You don't want to pay the bill for fatties, smokers, or folks who ride jetskis? How would you draw the line on who gets healthcare and who doesn't?

 

[eddie]

I broke the lower portion of my ankle during high school, went to a German Hospital and waited 2 and a 1/2 hours waiting to even SEE the doctor.

That is a normal wait in a large city ER here.

Read Achilles post. We already have Universal Health Care in the US, it's called the Emergency Room.

I'm opposed to "socialized medicine" on principle, but I'm beginning to wonder, given the facts and reality of it all, if it would be better to formalize possibly streamline the the mess we already have where people WITH insurance ultimately pay for those WITHOUT it.

 

[Huggy Bear]

Think of it this way: Remember you're last trip to the DMV or the last time you had to deal with the IRS. Now make your healthcare the same. I don't want that! And I sure as hell don't want to pay for it either.

Yes, lines suck and so do convoluted forms that you fill out every april. But do you deny that those two departments get the job done. Would you do away with the DMV? Would somehow privatize it with a for profit organization? How safe would the streets be without a DMV assisting law enforcement? Neither of those organizations are perfect, and are at best the 80% solution, but let's hear your ideas to do it better.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Well, with all that in mind, I can't fathom how our society COULD support a universal health care system.

Since when has a "NICE TO HAVE" been a "RIGHT TO HAVE?" Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...how dare the government regulate the latter by giving me health care that you have to pay for...and vice versa.

Especially as I choose not to smoke (unless drinking heavily) why should I pay for the morphine smokers will need to stay "comfortable" at the end?...and I don't think it's fair for you to pay for my liver replacement that I'll inevidably (sp??) need by my 32nd Bday...

2 of the MULTITUDE of reasons NOT to support that $hit.

~D

This just may be a philosphical difference between you and me. If you were speeding through a red light, cut me off, honked your horn and gave me the finger, I would still stop and help you if I saw that you had gotten into a car accident. Maybe your speeding was directly correlated to your accident, in the end, I don't care about the causes but more concerned about getting you healthy and back on the roads to speed, cut off, etc.

People should be accountable for their actions. People should be responsible for their actions. Ideally, this is how the world should work but it doesn't. In spite of that person's unaccountability or irresponsibility, I find it unacceptable to judge whether a person is worthy enough to live a healthy life based upon subjective factors.

If I remember correctly, emergency rooms are only required to stablize an individual; if an indigent person walked into a private hospital, the ER only has to stablize them enough to send them to a public/free hospital. And, please correct me if I am wrong, that private hospital can bill the person for those services and the transport to the free hospital. So, it isn't in the most dire of circumstances that a person will receive free health care; it is that a person shall never be denied of emergent health care because of their financial status.

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."

 

[ChunksJR]

Yes, lines suck and so do convoluted forms that you fill out every april. But do you deny that those two departments get the job done. Would you do away with the DMV? Would somehow privatize it with a for profit organization? How safe would the streets be without a DMV assisting law enforcement? Neither of those organizations are perfect, and are at best the 80% solution, but let's hear your ideas to do it better.

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

 

[Bugsmasher]

An argument I've often heard concerning smoking bans and taxes is that it will save money on healthcare costs. There are several other reasons behind smoking regulations, but I can only imagine how much louder the "save money" argument will become when everybody is paying for everybody else's health care under a UHC program. How long until the argument is extended to, say, taxing and banning red meat? Or saturated fats? Socialized medicine is a wide open door for government to regulate all kinds of "dangerous" behavior (and not just food) in the interests of "cutting health care costs", and I sure as hell don't trust them with that kind of power.

 

[ChunksJR]

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."

I hope so, because you would then have MADE the decision to not contribute a thing to this society.

Your generocity in the above example is reflective of the private sector that would not allow this to happen, however, so why regulate/force people to assist others when there are plenty of people who are willing to do it?

The constitution exists to protect the individual rights of americans...the governement should exist to protect that constitution, not the other way around. Socialism, even in the most charitable disguise, violates indivdual rights by forcing the government to infringe on those individual rights.

Oh, and philosophically I am libertarian...so yes, we may differ.

~D

 

[Son of a Grunt]

double post

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

I hope so, because you would then have MADE the decision to not contribute a thing to this society.

Your generocity in the above example is reflective of the private sector that would not allow this to happen, however, so why regulate/force people to assist others when there are plenty of people who are willing to do it?

The constitution exists to protect the individual rights of americans...the governement should exist to protect that constitution, not the other way around. Socialism, even in the most charitable disguise, violates indivdual rights by forcing the government to infringe on those individual rights.

Oh, and philosophically I am libertarian...so yes, we may differ.

~D

The truth of the matter is that most individuals aren't as charitable as we should be. 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. Another problem is that so many people make the presumption that since there are a few individuals who are willing to be generous, it is not necessary for them to also exhibit such generous qualities. 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?

The government exists to protect the people it serves. This protection should extend to protecting their lives beyond police and military protection.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

Vote NO to UHC!

I am all for universal health care. I know alot of conservative people hate the idea, but I think its great. We are the only post-modern country without some kind of universal health care system, its ridiculous. I actually wrote a letter to my congressman about it.

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?

 

[insanebikerboy]

I've always liked the old adage "you get what you pay for", so it makes me wonder if we don't have to pay for it, will it actually be any good? Methinks no.

 

[MasterBates]

You want UHC?

You want to pay 50% in taxes?

I want neither. This is the land of opportunity. Seize the opportunity, or stop bitching about having to pay for your diabetes meds because you only ate McD's for 20 years.