Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have stayed out of this debate until now, but I didn't see it quite the way many of you did. The majority did not cheer and go nuts, only a very small number did and I do not think Paul was really saying "let them die" he stressed the need for churches and charital organizations to step in like back when.
I used to volunteer as a driver for those who needed to be taken to the hospital or doctors. I also had a good friend in high school who 's family was on assistance; they were not denied medical assistance, they used the general hospital, If they needed to be hospitalized, they were put in a ward with 10 to 20 others. Now, they want to see a private doctor, get all the tests known to mankind, a private room if they need to be hopitalized and they think the govenment should pay for all the care they need. Paul was just trying to explain: there is a better way.
You get what you pay for! In the case of the above, you'd get . . . . ZERO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
Charities will take care of some. Families will chip in and pay for some. Others will set up a payment plan with their doctor and/or hospital. A few won't be so lucky.
The federal government can't save everyone. In fact it shouldn't. It should only provide a level playing field. Not everyone will succeed. In fact some will die before their time and that is a horrible thing.
Maybe you could elaborate on this "level playing field". I'm all ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
The same solutions we had that worked before big government got into our lives and raised the cost of doing business while lowering the quality. Our money purchased more before government got in the way under the guise of helping.
What I wont do is sit idly by and allow others to steal my money for their causes.
Tell me why you want to force me to take care of someone? If I help 10 people and the 11th dies do I get scrutinized as if I'm the one responsible for others lifestyle?
Why do you get to be the one who decides if I've done too much or too little to help another person? If I'm out volunteering at schools and hospitals but don't want to get taxed in order to pay for others medical care that's not good enough?
You do understand human nature, that people will not volunteer and contribute when their tax money is already helping? We know government won't do it as efficiently as charity. I want to give my money to cancer research but it's been distributed to "all" the other good causes. Why can't my money go to where I want it? Why does government get the say on which "cause" needs to be focused on?
How about government stays out of the jobs they are not enumerated to do? How about society fills the role through charity and not through force. You evolve through education, not through force and coercion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
Why not? Your ideas have brought us "participation trophies" and sporting events where they don't keep score so there won't be a losing team. I'm they guy in the stands keeping score and letting everyone around me know what it is.
Where do they get this power to create national healthcare? Please quote the section of the Constitution.
First of all, the quality of health care in the US for those who can afford it is top-notch. The quality is wonderful.
This argument about charities and "why can't my money go where I want it?" sounds good, but unfortunately, it leaves many people out of the charitable league. If you don't have a problem that appeals to a lot of people, tough luck with that approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
It takes no money to get up and exercise. It takes no money to not eat a bag of Cheetos. It takes no money to money to not drink or do drugs. Just a few examples of free and responsible decisions all of which lead to a healthy lifestyle.
Anyone who thinks that healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle will keep you disease free is nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
I did not mean to jump to conclusions. Sorry. But how can the market which is profit driven, compete with the government? They can insure people at a loss? If most people take the less expensive government option, then the market for other companies shrinks to nothing eventually. Then we have another massive bureaucracy like the IRS, DMV or any other alphabet agency.
You are jumping to conclusions now. Keeping people healthy is individual welfare. The general welfare of the US is keeping the borders safe and providing a starting point so that everyone can pursue their dreams. If that dream is starting a software company in a house in New Mexico and becoming the richest software mogul in the world or just getting by and not bothering anyone else, it is that individual's dream. It makes no distinction about individuals or even people.
What is the point of securing the borders if the people inside the borders are unhealthy. I think the welfare of the people should be the highest priority.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,171,154 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Anyone who thinks that healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle will keep you disease free is nuts.
I don't think it's nuts so much as the arrogance and shortsightedness of young people, especially young males. They literally cannot conceive of themselves as growing older and getting various illnesses, as long as they eat "right" and exercise.
Those things do make some difference, but not to where most people will escape medical problems as they age. For example the jogging that a person does for heart health now may lead to severe back, foot, and knee arthritis later. One might think that vegetarianism and no junk food will prevent heart attacks, but my oldest brother died from a massive heart attack after being a vegetarian most of his adult life, and rarely if ever eating junk food. The difference in heart attacks and strokes between the purest of vegans and the worst of fast food junkies is statistically moderate: on average the vegans have fewer, but they still have plenty.
Any older person here can tell about health fanatic friends who ate the best organic foods, exercised, even grew their own food, and yet developed any number of serious diseases. GENERALLY they're healthier, but I can think of several who have developed kidney problems, cancers, multiple sclerosis, even non-smokers who got emphysema or lung cancer!
So ...... it's not necessarily a bad idea to be thrifty about how the health care is delivered, as Mnita said - we could go back to wards for the poor and rely more on nurses and nurse practitioners, we could put more emphasis on prevention as is done in other countries with universal health care systems - but there should be every kind of basic health care available even to the homeless or very poorest.
In the current system, the uninsured and homeless go to emergency rooms at terrific expense ..... they're treated and billed, but the bills aren't paid because they can't be. If a guy is homeless, he's not likely to pay much on a $1200 ER bill. So in an attempt to save money by not having universal "commie" coverage, we end up paying MORE than the "******* f*g commie socialist" nations that have a coherent system. Just as a laser or an LED light is more efficient than chaotic incandescent lighting with all its different wavelengths and directions, so is a well-ordered universal healthcare system more efficient than a jumble of private insurance plans that only cover a select few who can afford them, or whose workplace provides one, with emergency rooms taking up the slack.
I have to give Rick Perry credit for these comments. He prioritizes them well, and explains his opinions well, especially against the usual attacks. Well done Governor.
"I was a bit taken aback by that myself," Perry told NBC News and the Miami Herald after appearing at a breakfast fundraiser in Tampa.
"We're the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives."
The Republican party ought to be about life and protecting, particularly, innocent life," he added, distinguishing issues such as the death penalty from the health insurance question. It’s a matter of justice, he said.
Perry also took on his controversial support for allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, saying his campaign has "the right message" on opportunities for children who were brought to the United States illegally "by no fault of their own."
"This issue is about education, it's not about immigration," he said.
"These kids showed up in our state by no fault of their own, some 2-3 years of age. And they've been in our schools, they've done their work, they've prepared themselves good, they want to be contributing members of society. So it would be I think the wrong message to say somehow or another that you can't go to our colleges, or we've going to punish you because of the sound of your last name."
"When people really think about it, I think they'll understand what we did in Texas was the right thing for Texas," he said.
None of these are realistic. And "a few won't be so lucky" is simply not acceptable in a civilized society. Then again, nobody really believes that this is actually a civilized country.
No........but the federal government (the executive and legislative branches) could work toward a realistic national health care system. They just don't want to.
A) We are a very civilized society.
B) We cannot have a national health care single payer system due to that pesky little Constitution.
Well, if we were all rich, we could all afford to be responsible.
Ahh, if only everyone were as responsible and had the perfect life you do, then we wouldn't have any problems with healthcare.
A) I was raised poor....but my father worked two jobs, put off his own wants, and did the responsible things to protect us. So, no....you don't need to be rich to be responsible.
B) My life is not perfect, but it is pretty damned good because of the foundation that I built by taking care of MY responsibilities...insuring my family for the inevitable health issues, by insuring my life and that of my wife in the event of an early death. I spend a lot of money on insurance which I could be using for other desired items.
We would have liked to have another child, but we knew that we could not afford to.
A) I was raised poor....but my father worked two jobs, put off his own wants, and did the responsible things to protect us. So, no....you don't need to be rich to be responsible.
B) My life is not perfect, but it is pretty damned good because of the foundation that I built by taking care of MY responsibilities...insuring my family for the inevitable health issues, by insuring my life and that of my wife in the event of an early death. I spend a lot of money on insurance which I could be using for other desired items.
We would have liked to have another child, but we knew that we could not afford to.
My life is also perfect, I'm content and it works for me....
I'm not rich, never have been, we were very poor when I was growing up...but have worked as many as two jobs already, and as yourself, I've done the same things...to protect everyone...my dad worked from dawn until way after dark...to provide for us...and I am not particularly found of free loaders and people taking all the time, sometimes it's great to give back, and become a part of the community.
Bottom line - if the system continues as it is now, we are ALL going to be paying way, way more than if there were a more reasonably run system. Right now there is corporate-fueled anarchy, which results in too much profit for them and too little access for the public, and that is the worst possible combination.
Right so quit voting in the scumbags who cause prices to rise by manipulating the market. As long as the market is controlled I'll agree with you that companies are too greedy. Once it becomes the free market it changes dramatically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
Not the point. It's about establishing a system that makes costs reasonable for all and providing access for all.
Because you do not understand the simple point of the how the free market lowers costs and increases efficiency. Government cannot establish a system like that. How could they when they do not allow competition and have proven in the past they reward friends by manipulating the free market.
If government control is grand why are the costs for medicine so high in this country? The same medicine in Canada or Mexico is a lot cheaper. With all this technology the free market says costs should go down, just the opposite is happening. And why not since government sets the price to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
Depending on volunteerism to bring healthcare to the masses is unrealistic and idiotic.
Offer proof otherwise I don't believe you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
So, you want to leave it up to the market? I'm about to die of a heart attack from laughing so hard.
So you want to continue the way things are and continue to deny the free market a chance. Keep laughing. Those are the policies that kill people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
Sometimes government needs to take action, fix what is broken - and then get the hell out of the way.
No they don't. Govt has specific enumerated powers. None of which is to manipulate the economy. "Fix what is broken" LMAO Who do you think broke it? Yea lets get the very same ones who drove the economy into the ground to fix it. I don't have faith in them. They are horrible. if they were in the private sector they'd be fired. Because the private sector doesn't allow huge failures to keep their job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
Things can be done that way, and Pres. Obama had his chance to at least push for this type of philosophy. Problem is, he capitulated to the wishes of the corporations rather than the needs and will of the people, and that will be one of his major failures.
Philosophy??? What has he tried that's worked? Do you actually think what he's trying hasn't been tried before?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have faith in them. They are horrible. if they were in the private sector they'd be fired. Because the private sector doesn't allow huge failures to keep their job.
