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.
What degree of health care do YOU think should be a RIGHT for EVERYONE to have?
ANY problem that can be treated while it is still small, before it becomes large and therefore kills...should be a right.
This means treatment of injuries, treatment for sicknesses, dental care, vision care, hearing care.
We should all be able to enjoy the best quality of life possible given our own bodies. If some healthcare treatment is going to INCREASE or RESTORE quality of life to that person, then it should be that person's RIGHT to receive such care. Period.
We should all be able to enjoy the best quality of life possible given our own bodies. If some healthcare treatment is going to INCREASE or RESTORE quality of life to that person, then it should be that person's RIGHT to receive such care. Period.
OK, that's nice and dandy, but who is paying for it and how? Or you expect doctors, nurses, janitors to work for free, forever?
Besides, God, country and family, 2 more things are very important to me -- health and liberty.
Health: do I really want to entrust my health on the weakest actor? The Federal Govt? That is like trusting you game-winning shot to the worst player of your bench.
Liberty- I not only want my liberty so I can decide how best to provide healthcare to my family, but also my liberty to not get involved in your hemorrhoidal problems, if I don't want to.
What is it with your libs that you keep nagging at me to do something for you that I want no part of. You remind me of those NYC subway peddlers that you can't get away from.
And with your wonderful education and endless ambition why in the world would you have to entrust your healthcare to the govt.? You should be able to go wherever you please. And if you don't want to pay for others, you're in the wrong place. I don't have kids and I don't want to educate yours. I don't have a car, I don't want to pay for roads. I don't believe in war, I don't want to pay for the military. Get the picture?
UCLA PolSci Major, Comparative's focus, and minor in Macro. Booth MBA. Yours?
I know people with less schooling than you, and a lot less schooling than me, that know more about these subjects. So what's your point?
I have a BS in Political Science. Magna *** laude. Three constitutional law courses.
I have a BS in Economics. Magna *** laude.
I have a J.D. as well. Two constitutional law courses.
My major point is that I wouldn't expect someone with a real background in constitutional law to suggest that the constitution begins and ends with whatever intent they claim the Founding Fathers had. That's part of the matrix, but other equally significant parts include subsequent U.S. History, constitutional amendments, and mostly importantly decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless all that is integrated into an understanding of the constitution an opinion is pretty weak.
The U.S.A. isn't about to adopt communism as a system of government. I think, in some ways, coming from the Eastern Bloc can be a handicap in understanding the American political system. The culture here is very different and one should be careful about seeing "socialism" or "communism" in everything in America that one does not like.
First off, argument is about Europe's Social programs being a magnet for many immigrants. In fact many are older age, who really did not contribute throughout their working years to a system, while they receive equal benefits to someone who did.
You changed subject, shifted over to US Welfare while playing drama-queen. So stick with the subject.
That US system rations care is the default argument supporters of UHC make. There is great debate about this, and you can get blue in the face with reading pros and cons. But I am sure ideology has decided which side you're with.
Besides, I am not the one to hold US Healthcare system in high regard. As stated earlier in this thread, IMO it has many ills itself.
But to turn to the European model and shriek "ouh-la-la" Nirvana, is ignorant and regressive.
Living in Washington DC metro area for ever I know plenty of europeans who came to this country, made their fortunes and went back home because of their fear of the US health care delivery system. For all those decades they did not contribute to their home country's UHC. They never gave up their citizenship. They left with US dollars, SS and do quite well knowing that they will not be denied or go bankrupt in their old years.
I wrote 2-3 pages ago that if there was a way to get Insurance Cos out of the driver's seat in Healthcare I would love it. Both them and the Govt out of the Driver's seat. They have a role, but IMO they have taken too central of a role.
We NYers have plenty of thick skin, but that's the way we talk. No offense.
Not for nothing, you think like one. But that's OK. I got plenty of youse in NY. What else is new?
No, I do not think like one. I witnessed first hand the brutality of for-profit insurance. The pain my wife went through who is now totally disabled and on medicare, no thanks to those hustlers. A very long story, so much misery. That is not liberal or conservative. That is a family who paid premiums for decades, to then do battle after battle with insurance companies while a spouse is slowly fading away with very little treatment. To deny equals profit.
I have a BS in Political Science. Magna *** laude. Three constitutional law courses.
I have a BS in Economics. Magna *** laude.
I have a J.D. as well. Two constitutional law courses.
My major point is that I wouldn't expect someone with a real background in constitutional law to suggest that the constitution begins and ends with whatever intent they claim the Founding Fathers had. That's part of the matrix, but other equally significant parts include subsequent U.S. History, constitutional amendments, and mostly importantly decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless all that is integrated into an understanding of the constitution an opinion is pretty weak.
The U.S.A. isn't about to adopt communism as a system of government. I think, in some ways, coming from the Eastern Bloc can be a handicap in understanding the American political system. The culture here is very different and one should be careful about seeing "socialism" or "communism" in everything in America that one does not like.
That's pretty impressive achievements. Which Law School did you go to, if I may ask?
I would also add that Constitutional study should also include States' history, their own ratification history, Confederation, etc. Even more, it should also include philosophy, economics, religion, so yes, it's a pretty comprehensive field, and most of them you did not study in LS, or did you?
You must admit that in Law School (which I didn't go to, but my wife did) you would expect that Const Law classes would be oriented towards SCOTUS cases, as many others, no?
No one is claiming that US is about to adopt communism, but I need to ask you -- do you know much about this other side, communism, Marxism, Leninism, its theoretical underpinnings, because I know that although a PolSci major at UCLA I did not really learn much about those in my electives, let alone core course.
So the Federal Govt is to divert money from the Defense budget, to somehow pay for the healthcare services you think everyone should get. Ok. How much $ should the Federal Govt take out, and how much $$ is it gonna cost the Federal Govt to pay for those services you mentioned?
After seeing hor the Federal Govt managed a stupid website, no I wouldn't want it near my
Healthcare, or my kids', or even yours.
I already pay for your parents' healthcare if they're seniors. I already pay for your healthcare if you fall on hard times. God forbid you become disabled, I'll pay for your healthcare for life. If you have kids and don't make enough money, I'll pay for them too.
But no, if you are a fully-abled adult, and make more money than Medicaid, no -- I don't want to pay for yours. More importantly, I don't want to lose my and your liberty that we as fully-abled adults can make pour own choices on how to get healthcare for ourselves.
Surely you pay for my kids public school education for 12 years, but those will be the ones to work and pay for your own healthcare, when you're a senior. Should they cap you at 12 years, and then cancel you?
You get the picture?
Absolutely ridiculous argument for someone so intelligent. I said that you will not need the ACA nor will your children so where's the argument? You counter with examples that have been part of our society for a long time. And none of which would concern me other than Medicare and social security at 65 which I'm sure you won't refuse either. I've had private health ins. since I was 18. I've paid my way, paid my taxes, and have only complained about unnecessary military actions, waste, and excess. I've never begrudged those less fortunate than myself no matter how they got there. When I had to give a little more, I did. When there was more than I needed, I though of others. That's the way I was raised. That's my religion. Not an idol in a fancy building. I want you to tell me how your version of Liberty is better than mine. I want you to tell me how caring for everyone, no matter what, and not leaving anyone behind infringes on your personal freedom or leads to communism.
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.
