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.
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.
Really? There's a foundation for everything. Pick a disease and someone has set up something for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Anyone who thinks that healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle will keep you disease free is nuts.
I didn't say it would but it helps. I was just giving a few examples that cost nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
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.
Because there is a limited amount of medical resources. Basic economics teaches that when demand increases, the price will increase. Remove illegals from the market and the price will have to fall to attract customers.
Really? There's a foundation for everything. Pick a disease and someone has set up something for it.
Yes, really. Ask some of the members of CD who have been in need what they've found when they were in need of money for health care. Or, just do a search. You'll find the "help" they've gotten to be very minor. Appreciated, yes, but far, far, far from comprehensive.
I didn't say it would but it helps. I was just giving a few examples that cost nothing.
LOL! Your response was totally debunked by another poster. People who live "healthy lifestyles" get sick. Yes, they do. It could happen to you.
Because there is a limited amount of medical resources. Basic economics teaches that when demand increases, the price will increase. Remove illegals from the market and the price will have to fall to attract customers.
That has nothing to do with the issue. Good lord, "illegals" aren't even a problem in many states.
First of all, the quality of health care in the US for those who can afford it is top-notch. The quality is wonderful.
agree 100 percent
So treat the cause not the symptom. Quit allowing government to stifle competition which raises costs dramatically. Allow the free market to work. Setting prices hasn't worked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
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.
Who gets left out?
Remember the myth of the 42 million? (which included illegals btw) Almost 1/3 of the people would be covered when they walked into the emergency room.
Haven't you talked to older doctors and nurses about how the system worked before government got involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Anyone who thinks that healthy eating and a healthy lifestyle will keep you disease free is nuts.
I've never met anyone who has said that. Who are all these people that say such silly things?
I do know for a FACT healthy eaters and those who live a healthy lifestyle overall, have far less health problems and therefore lower health costs. That's obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
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.
Right so once again treat the cause and not the symptom. Over 30 percent in this country are obese, that's a joke.
agree 100 percent
So treat the cause not the symptom. Quit allowing government to stifle competition which raises costs dramatically. Allow the free market to work. Setting prices hasn't worked.
Who gets left out?
Remember the myth of the 42 million? (which included illegals btw) Almost 1/3 of the people would be covered when they walked into the emergency room.
Haven't you talked to older doctors and nurses about how the system worked before government got involved?
"Almost 1/3". What about the "over 2/3" who aren't covered? And all you people (it's not just you) who think wandering into an ER is a substitute for good health care have another think coming. ERs will treat acute illnesses, but no ER is going to let you come in once a month to get your blood pressure taken, or do a mammogram or pap on you, or a myriad of other types of health care that don't fall into "acute illness". The only type of cancer care you can get in an ER is after the cancer has so wracked your body that your systems are shutting down. And you know what? I am one of those "older nurses". The system didn't work all that great. Ron Paul is fantasizing.
I've never met anyone who has said that. Who are all these people that say such silly things?
I do know for a FACT healthy eaters and those who live a healthy lifestyle overall, have far less health problems and therefore lower health costs. That's obvious.
It's not nearly so obvious as you think. Another poster said it well. Statistically, there is little difference for some diseases between the vegetarians and the junk food eaters. Many diseases are pretty much "equal opportunity". Genetics plays a role, including one's sex.
Right so once again treat the cause and not the symptom. Over 30 percent in this country are obese, that's a joke.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,168,495 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFish2
Only the strong survive... nothing wrong with that. This world has ALWAYS been about the haves and the have nots
No ..... not the strong survive, that's not even Darwinian. The ones who produce the most viable offspring "survive" in the sense of passing along their genes to future generations.
Relationships have always been the most important aid to personal survival .... the people with the strongest social networks had a much better chance of survival than the strongest thug or small robber gangs. Who won out in the Wild West: the predatory gunslingers, the gamblers, the loner mountain men ..... or the geeky little bank tellers and fat shop owners? The meek shall inherit the Earth.
What I'd like to see is strong social networks grow and encompass the entire people of the USA and their laws ..... and beyond that, the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
B) We cannot have a national health care single payer system due to that pesky little Constitution.
The Constitution is sort of like the Bible ..... people who haven't spent years in formal education on it are likely to see things that just aren't there (for example thinking that nudity, drinking, smoking, lesbianism, or swearing are forbidden by the Bible ..... or thinking that their dogs will be allowed into Heaven.) I'm sure you believe the Constitution forbids a single payer system. I'm also sure that Constitutional lawyers in general see no such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
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.
......
Was your father dying of cancer when he worked those two jobs? Did he have brain damage and paraplegia from an accident? Or perhaps was he severely mentally ill, thinking that he was the Emperor of France and assaulting anyone who dared to disagree?
No ..... not the strong survive, that's not even Darwinian. The ones who produce the most viable offspring "survive" in the sense of passing along their genes to future generations.
Relationships have always been the most important aid to personal survival .... the people with the strongest social networks had a much better chance of survival than the strongest thug or small robber gangs. Who won out in the Wild West: the predatory gunslingers, the gamblers, the loner mountain men ..... or the geeky little bank tellers and fat shop owners? The meek shall inherit the Earth.
What I'd like to see is strong social networks grow and encompass the entire people of the USA and their laws ..... and beyond that, the world.
The Constitution is sort of like the Bible ..... people who haven't spent years in formal education on it are likely to see things that just aren't there (for example thinking that nudity, drinking, smoking, lesbianism, or swearing are forbidden by the Bible ..... or thinking that their dogs will be allowed into Heaven.) I'm sure you believe the Constitution forbids a single payer system. I'm also sure that Constitutional lawyers in general see no such thing.
Was your father dying of cancer when he worked those two jobs? Did he have brain damage and paraplegia from an accident? Or perhaps was he severely mentally ill, thinking that he was the Emperor of France and assaulting anyone who dared to disagree?
A) The Constitution is written in plain english. Take the words for what they mean and it's really quite simple....it places limits on what the government can do.
B) No. My father is alive and well. However, he was always covered just in case. I know people who have died from cancer and they were all covered by their insurance companies. We have a very close family friend who is 60 years old and is in the middle stages of Alzheimer's, and her care is covered by her insurance.
It wasn't always easy for those who have carried the responsibility for a family and themselves, but they manage.
The point is, very few people are in a position to go through life uninsured.
I have a close friend who has a small $50,000 life insurance policy through work. He has a 7 year old and a 3 year old. He is 49 years old. I spoke to him about the need for more life insurance just in case. He said that it is too expensive.
Meanwhile, he has a trailer at the shore, a boat, jet ski, 2 new cars and many other luxury items.
If he should die, his wife will be left without a home and no security for her children's future.
I have a close friend who has a small $50,000 life insurance policy through work. He has a 7 year old and a 3 year old. He is 49 years old. I spoke to him about the need for more life insurance just in case. He said that it is too expensive.
Meanwhile, he has a trailer at the shore, a boat, jet ski, 2 new cars and many other luxury items.
If he should die, his wife will be left without a home and no security for her children's future.
A) The Constitution is written in plain english. Take the words for what they mean and it's really quite simple....it places limits on what the government can do.
B) No. My father is alive and well. However, he was always covered just in case. I know people who have died from cancer and they were all covered by their insurance companies. We have a very close family friend who is 60 years old and is in the middle stages of Alzheimer's, and her care is covered by her insurance.
It wasn't always easy for those who have carried the responsibility for a family and themselves, but they manage.
The point is, very few people are in a position to go through life uninsured.
I have a close friend who has a small $50,000 life insurance policy through work. He has a 7 year old and a 3 year old. He is 49 years old. I spoke to him about the need for more life insurance just in case. He said that it is too expensive.
Meanwhile, he has a trailer at the shore, a boat, jet ski, 2 new cars and many other luxury items.
If he should die, his wife will be left without a home and no security for her children's future.
Who's responsibility are they?
Then you should be very pleased that Obamacare mandates that All individuals must purchase health insurance.
Not at all. Alphamale gave a great example of someone who has a limited amount of funds and chose to spend them on luxury items instead of planning for the future whether it is health or life insurance.
Wolf's question in the debate was loaded. He did not give enough background information. Had the fictitious person in the question been given the opportunity to buy health insurance but chose to buy a jet ski instead then he deserves what he gets.
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.
Because the people don't want them to. A national health care system, that will be filled with waste, fraud and abuse? No thank you.
And you're right - we're not a very civilized country. When the half of the country that pays no taxes, wants to steal more of my money, so they can benefit from their lack of planning? Shameful, I say.
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.
