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.
See why doesn't the tea party and their candidates come out and say this. Say it and let those poor fools know what they stand for.
I'd like it if politicians told the truth. Don't treat me like I'm a kid. As stated earlier, life is sometimes hard. For some, life is always hard and there is no end in site.
The mere existence of another person does not make me indebted to him. The freedom of this country allows you to join a hippy commune and pool all of your worldly possessions together as a collective. It also should allow me to be a lone wolf and not be responsible to anyone but myself. How can either of us be free to do that when the .gov is telling us what to do every second of the day?
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
I keep hearing about personal responsibility, but what I am not hearing are pragmatic solutions that actually work. What happens when someone cannot afford to be sick? What happens when they are injured and cannot work? What happens when they are unemployed and cannot afford medical care? Personal responsibility won't do a damn thing. Solutions? What do you have?
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.
A Single Payer system to me, is the only answer. It would not be free - we would all pay a tax for it - even those getting welfare now. And the tax would be higher than anyone pays today.
That is not neccessarily so. One of the things thats been kept a bit quiet in the health care debate, is that Americans pay more tax for health care than many first world nations do. Right now. Neither party is particularily interested in people realizing how their tax stewardship compares to other countries.
And yes, that is before you even look at the cost of insurance.
The rea bars are how much tax money goes to health care, the pink one how much people then have to spend on insurance/out of pocket. Note how Americans pay more tax for health care, have to get insurance, and them end up with uninsured, medical bankrupcies, competitive disadvantages, etc.
So how much would a UHC cost in America? Best guess is about the same as Germany. Whose system is already quite similar. A high GDP per person raises the costs a bit at a national level, but a large population lowers them again. The economies of scale are real. (Just ask Wallmart) Note that Norway is a bit of an outlier, being both small and rich.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario
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.
Where do they get this power to create national healthcare? Please quote the section of the Constitution.
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?
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.
Quote:
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?
Not the point. It's about establishing a system that makes costs reasonable for all and providing access for all. Depending on volunteerism to bring healthcare to the masses is unrealistic and idiotic.
Quote:
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.
So, you want to leave it up to the market? I'm about to die of a heart attack from laughing so hard.
Quote:
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.
Sometimes government needs to take action, fix what is broken - and then get the hell out of the way. 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.
Well, if we were all rich, we could all afford to be responsible.
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.
Sometimes government needs to take action, fix what is broken - and then get the hell out of the way.
When you can't even decide on what it broken, how do you fix it? Is it the medical industry? Is it insurance? Because the solution isn't the same for both. Also, when the government "fixes" something, they never, ever, ever get out of they way. When given power, when do they ever give it up?
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.
My ideas?
Let me tell you something about my ideas. I once wrestled in a tournament where there were three participants in my weight class. I fought the other two guys and lost both matches. Since there were three in my weight class, I placed third. The tournament director then called us to get our medals. When they told me to come over and get my bronze, I refused. I refused because I didn't do anything to deserve it.
You don't deserve a trophy unless you earn that trophy. That's in sports and in life.
My ideas? Please. You've got no idea who you're talking to.
Maybe your problem is that you're in the stands keeping score. The scorekeeper doesn't work from the stands. He works in the press box. I'm neither in the stands nor the press box. I'm on the field, ballin'.
Quote:
Where do they get this power to create national healthcare? Please quote the section of the Constitution.
Oh, I dunno, probably Article One, Section 8, which establishes a legislative branch that passes laws that govern the country............
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.
