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.
It is really simple, you set up government subsidized clinics for people who cannot afford healthcare. The clinics provide "basic healthcare” if you have an infection, you get antibiotics, if you have a broken bone you get a cast, if you have appendicitis, they take out your appendix. But if you have a bad liver and need a transplant you are SOL, if you need a heart transplant you are SOL, if you have AIDS and need super expensive meds you are SOL. And one more thing you give up all right to sue no matter what happens. Take it or leave it.
I would ideally like B) but think A) is the reality no matter what.
As our friends in such places as the UK, Canada, and Sweden like to boast, there are thriving private health sectors flourishing alongside their cherished state systems.
Why would that be the case if not for A)?
That is because these nations' healthcare delivery systems is a hybrid of both private and public except for the UK. If I'm not mistaking the UK, which is much more socialistic than Canada and Sweden still offers supplemental coverage. It is par for the course.
I agee. The RW has made a mockery of the term "personal responsibility". Everything bad that happens to someone is the result of isufficient "personal responsibility" according to their minions. Until it happens to them, of course. Then "that's different".
Such partisan garbage.
Personal responsibility simply means you are responsible for yourself, your actions, your planning, etc... If you spend all of your money at the bar and leave none to buy food, it is your consequence to deal with and nobody else is required or obligated to provide food for you.
It means no other is responsible for you and if something happens to you, it is not other peoples "responsibility" to attend to you. It is a choice of theirs if they wish, but not a requirement as to do so would extend ones individual responsibility on to another making individual responsibility irrelevant.
The problem here is you use your ideal to disregard individual responsibility by demanding adherence to collective responsibility.
The poster you were responding to used an improper example to argue his position (for emotional effect). He attempted to claim that individual responsibility meant that a person who by chance encounters hardship is at "fault" FOR the encounter itself. It is a misdirection to the issue that avoids dealing with the relevant concept of individual responsibility.
A person without car insurance may not be at fault FOR the accident, but they would be responsible for having the protections that would result from the accident (insurance for medical bills, uninsured drivers, etc...) as these things can be responsibly prepared for. We don't get car insurance because we know we will get into an accident, but because there is always a chance we may get into one and need that protection.
We don't get health insurance because we are sick, but because we know we may get sick and may require its protections and services.
We don't save emergency funds because we need the money, but because we may have an emergency which might require it.
Responsible means, if I chose not to prepare for something, then I must accept the consequences of not doing so. Does this mean someone deserves to starve because they spent all of their money on frivolous things rather than buying food with it? Does this mean that a person who takes a risk and suffers the consequence of such a risk "deserves" it? No, but it does not mean the person can excuse their responsibility and demand another attend to their consequence.
If I choose not to prepare, I will suffer the consequences of such and I personally have made many mistakes in my life to which I did not act in a responsible manner for my situation. I however did not blame others for my lack of responsibility, I accepted my state and did what I could to repair my error. I did not smugly call other people greedy hateful and self centered because they did not come rushing to bail me out of my own lack of responsibility.
All you are doing is demanding everyone be responsible for everyone else while at the same time excusing the individual for being responsible for themselves. Your logic is convoluted, backwards, conflicting and hypocritical.
Personal responsibility simply means you are responsible for yourself, your actions, your planning, etc... If you spend all of your money at the bar and leave none to buy food, it is your consequence to deal with and nobody else is required or obligated to provide food for you.
It means no other is responsible for you and if something happens to you, it is not other peoples "responsibility" to attend to you. It is a choice of theirs if they wish, but not a requirement as to do so would extend ones individual responsibility on to another making individual responsibility irrelevant.
The problem here is you use your ideal to disregard individual responsibility by demanding adherence to collective responsibility.
The poster you were responding to used an improper example to argue his position (for emotional effect). He attempted to claim that individual responsibility meant that a person who by chance encounters hardship is at "fault" FOR the encounter itself. It is a misdirection to the issue that avoids dealing with the relevant concept of individual responsibility.
A person without car insurance may not be at fault FOR the accident, but they would be responsible for having the protections that would result from the accident (insurance for medical bills, uninsured drivers, etc...) as these things can be responsibly prepared for. We don't get car insurance because we know we will get into an accident, but because there is always a chance we may get into one and need that protection.
We don't get health insurance because we are sick, but because we know we may get sick and may require its protections and services.
We don't save emergency funds because we need the money, but because we may have an emergency which might require it.
Responsible means, if I chose not to prepare for something, then I must accept the consequences of not doing so. Does this mean someone deserves to starve because they spent all of their money on frivolous things rather than buying food with it? Does this mean that a person who takes a risk and suffers the consequence of such a risk "deserves" it? No, but it does not mean the person can excuse their responsibility and demand another attend to their consequence.
If I choose not to prepare, I will suffer the consequences of such and I personally have made many mistakes in my life to which I did not act in a responsible manner for my situation. I however did not blame others for my lack of responsibility, I accepted my state and did what I could to repair my error. I did not smugly call other people greedy hateful and self centered because they did not come rushing to bail me out of my own lack of responsibility.
All you are doing is demanding everyone be responsible for everyone else while at the same time excusing the individual for being responsible for themselves. Your logic is convoluted, backwards, conflicting and hypocritical.
There are always things that you cannot prepare for. To assert that someone is at fault for not being prepared for all things is illogical.
There are always things that you cannot prepare for. To assert that someone is at fault for not being prepared for all things is illogical.
Where did I assert such? Where did I say everything can be prepared for? If you had been reading this thread, you would have seen me say that some things are as such, but those special cases are not the norm.
Do some on here really think that when they pay their Taxes it's just for THEM??????????
Why should I pay for others if it does not benefit me? What right do you have to demand such from me? What about my rights?
This is the problem with these stupid "collective" ideologies. They stomp all over individuals with the excuse that it is for the "collective good". If it is bad for the individual, how on earth can it be good for the "collective"? It is a backward ideology.
That is because these nations' healthcare delivery systems is a hybrid of both private and public except for the UK. If I'm not mistaking the UK, which is much more socialistic than Canada and Sweden still offers supplemental coverage. It is par for the course.
The point being there is a free market sector alongside the government-sponsored plan, if you can afford it. Example- I know someone in the UK who had her cataracts treated outside the NHS. She plunked the money down. She could afford it, which was one of the points of the OP.
Not making a judgement call. Just saying.
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.
