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.
...so If I work for 20 years, get laid off and file unemployment, I am a non-contributor to society?
Can't believe you ask this question. When you were working you were a contributing member of society. But if you don't work from then on and who knows how long you live, then you are not a contributing member of society. You are a net consumer of the people's wealth without putting in your contribution.
Can't believe you ask this question. When you were working you were a contributing member of society. But if you don't work from then on and who knows how long you live, then you are not a contributing member of society. You are a net consumer of the people's wealth without putting in your contribution.
Acting not from selfishness is exactly what universal healthcare opponents want.
And black is white and up is down - yes we've heard all the rationalization opponents like you make up to try to defend your attitude and behavior toward UHC. Step back and listen for once instead of just parroting the party line. Let those of us who can model moral behaviors for you - those of us who will likely benefit from UHC not at all and very likely pay more for less as a result, but still support UHC because the basic needs of those less fortunate is more important than you and I having yet-even neater consumer goods or going on yet-even ritzier vacations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Selfishness is telling people who are less fortunate to ... die.
Very true. And note that the opponents always act the most obtuse and evasive when you probe them about the impact of their attitudes and behaviors regarding UHC on the health and even lives of people they toward which they are showing such indefensible callous disregard.
“The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” B. Franklin
HC is not a right. But IMO we should be in a position as a society to make it as close to a right as we reasonably can. HC is extremely important in one's life, security and pursuit of happiness. The middle class simply needs to get together and push for it.
The ability to provide HC for all our masses should not be limited by money. Money can be created. But our ability to provide all that care could easily be limited by available HC resources, and we would need to expand on those.
Providing for the HC needs of our people will in no way turn us into a Zimbabwe. Granted all that extra business might cause some inflation, but nothing like hyper.
Food is also important to one's life. Critical, in fact. Should there be universal groceries?
And black is white and up is down - yes we've heard all the rationalization opponents like you make up to try to defend your attitude and behavior toward UHC. Step back and listen for once instead of just parroting the party line. Let those of us who can model moral behaviors for you - those of us who will likely benefit from UHC not at all and very likely pay more for less as a result, but still support UHC because the basic needs of those less fortunate is more important than you and I having yet-even neater consumer goods or going on yet-even ritzier vacations.
Very true. And note that the opponents always act the most obtuse and evasive when you probe them about the impact of their attitudes and behaviors regarding UHC on the health and even lives of people they toward which they are showing such indefensible callous disregard.
Who are you to dictate what people need to buy or what types of vacations they should take. Someone busts their behind to be successful and afford family vacations or a new car and you deem them not worthy? Wasn't aware we had so many tyrants on this board. At what point do you just take the entire paycheck and ration the entire thing evenly to everyone.
Selfishness is telling people who are less fortunate to **** off and die.
I'm always astounded at the hypocritical and contradictory statements that come from an argument based on morality or ideals. Both sides attempt to defend their positions with moral imperatives which invariably places them in conflict with other positions they may have. Further, it also highlights, in some cases, that some people, such Opin_Yunated are willfully ignorant about the realities of the world unless it suits them. We as a society and government tell people to **** off and die every day. Although its not with the same hyperbole used above but the same meaning none the less. I'm rather sure Opin_Yunated supported US withdrawal from Iraq with the knowledge that people in Iraq will die because of that decision. He seems quick to take the high-ground with causes he believes in and I'm willing to bet he chooses the pragmatic line when it suits him as well. The moral absurdity Opin_Yunated writes with here has been and will be again quickly contradicted when he supports a pragmatic solution that results in the loss of life. I'm rather sure when he choose the pragmatic solution, he wont think of himself as selfish and probably wont consider his decision as one akin to "**** off and die". So, Opin_Yunated, next time you support a policy that results in the loss of life, you are basically telling someone who is less fortunate to **** off and die. I understand you think you have some moral superiority but its only willful ignorance that allows you to pretend.
Last edited by billydaman; 02-26-2015 at 04:16 PM..
What I "think" is irrelevant. The United States is monetarily sovereign. It can pay any bill of any size at any time. It could make the U.S. dollar equal to a partridge and a pear tree.
Which is what will happen so it's not going to happen. Granted, expecting accountability in government is probably as unlikely.
Food is also important to one's life. Critical, in fact. Should there be universal groceries?
We here in the USA don't have a food problem. Excess food and wrong food are more of a problem.
HC costs are so strongly associated with age. And of course we have the poor and disabled.
Comparing to food it would be like all our seniors requiring filet mignon and caviar, and only expensive foods in vast quantities in order to stay alive. It could be done, but not without vast investment in the necessary infrastructure and distribution. And the rest of our people might have to wait in line getting these and maybe other foods. But just like with pursuing more universal HC, we would be limited by our related resources and productivity, not by the money itself.
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.
