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.
I bet you are the type of person who calls people who oppose national healthcare "callous".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
So true, Annie. Growing very old is NOT for the faint of heart and it's also not cheap for the taxpayer.
When one sees how very old people often live - you might want to go out and smoke that cigarette anyway.
The entire system is designed to take every last penny from the elderly and then allow Medicaid to pay for their nursing homes.
No thanks.
That is why I am not too bothered by the prospect of dying somewhat prematurely. I have seen a few nursing homes in my time and what lies beyond your mid-70s isn't pleasant. Sure, you do have a the occasional active and coherent person in their 80s or even 90s and beyond, but those people are usually so damn hardy that I don't think all the cigarettes and booze in the world can slow them down (and anyone who honest know that a lot of those people lived and live less than healthy lifestyles).
However, that is not life for the majority of people in their late 70s and older. Denis Leary (back when he was funny which means back when he was ripping off Bill Hicks) once had a bit about how smoking takes off the worst years of your life. After seeing a roomful of people in their late 80s who through dementia and medication have been reduced to zombies (not an exaggeration, the only difference between them and the zombies in Night of the Living Dead was that I never saw them eat anyone and the zombies actually looked less dead); I find the virtues of living to be to an advance age to be one of those "be careful what you wish for" type deals.
I am somewhat concerned about is being that freak case. I am comfortable with dying in my 70s or even my 60s, but I am slightly worried about being the very, very rare case of someone developing lung cancer or some other horrible disease before they are 30 or 40. Is it likely to happen? No (technically, smokers don't even have a higher rate of lung cancer until their mid-30s and it isn't even a significant cause of death among smokers until their 50s and 60s), but it does happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Hmm, the poor in this country have the largest percentage of smokers and obese. Thus, wouldn't this type of policy result in even less healthcare for those that Obama was purporting to try and help with Obamacare? Hey, if Democrats want to alienate a huge portion of their voting demographic, I'm not about to get in the way of their political suicide.
Are you kidding me?
Politicians regularly f--k over their supporters. Actually, sometimes I think they are more likely to f--k their supporters than their opponents. That is why Obama is able to have Bush's foreign policy and nobody will do anything about it. What are his supporters going to do? Vote Republican? Same with a lot of Republicans. If you look at John McCain's stances, he is supportive of a lot of policies that annoy and anger conservatives and libertarians, but what are they gonna do? Vote Democrat?
Interesting. So, fascism and conservatism are interchangeable too, right?
No. Fascism and conservatism are hardly interchangeable.
I'm assuming you're trying incite my support of conservatism, but that won't happen. I was a die hard conservative republican for a long time until I finally woke up and realized that both dems and repubs are loaded with statists who want to force their beliefs, morals and prejudices upon society. While I tend to lean far more conservative than liberal, I am hardly what would be called a conservative or a republican. I believe in the concept of each individual being "free to choose" what is best for their life as long as it doesn't interfere with the liberty or property rights of another.
But this thread wasn't about me or my politics. I only threw my comments on liberals, progressives, socialists, marxists and communists because those systems always claim to want to redistribute the production and gains of society, but invariably always wind up redistributing misery to that society because they always run out of other people's production and gains (money). I also wanted to express my disdain for any policy advocating forced taking earnings of one person in order to provide for another.
A right to something, be it healthcare, food, housing, transportation, etc. can not be considered a right if it first required taking the property of one person in order to provide it for another. So while you folks are debating the details of Obamacare, I will always continue to argue that Obamacare, universal healthcare, single payer, etc. is immoral because it steals property from one person in order to redistribute to another.
Yay for deflection! You have no idea who I am or how I conduct my life. I can guarantee you that I could school you on "personal responsibility" so much it would make your head spin. Get over yourself.
Yet you think it is ok to use the threat of force, fines and imprisonment to mandate that one must give a portion of their own labor efforts (money) in order to pay for another and you somehow equate that with "personal responsibility"? Could it be that you mean "personal responsibility" should be displayed by giving all your earnings to society so that those in society who do not exercise "personal responsibility" can continue to behave in this manner? And this promotes "personal responsibility" how?
How can it be considered "personal responsibility" if it is mandated by government? How can contributions be considered charity if they are mandated by the government?
I have zero doubt that many who are politically left of me believe their ideas are for the betterment of society. I have no problem if you decide you want to take part in those things yourself. I on the other hand prefer to choose my own local charities, even selecting individuals whom I believe will make an effort to overcome their circumstances. I've paid for the healthcare of an individual who was a neighbor and no relation of mine. I paid for her medications. I paid for her and her kids food. I bought them clothes & provided her kids with Christmas. I paid for a first and last month's rent, along with utility deposits and 1st month's utilities. I paid to have her car fixed. I paid for 6 months of car insurance. My wife provided free childcare for her kids for about 8 months. But all these things were by MY choice, and they also came with strings attached requiring that she better her circumstance & get a productive job so she didn't continue to need handouts. <<THAT is charity. THAT is being socially responsible. THAT is doing my part because I could. THAT is using MY "personal responsibility" in an attempt to enable another to exercise their own "personal responsibility".
If instead of those things I gave the same amount to some government program, the government would have sucked 40% to 60% off the top. They wouldn't have place value judgments upon her that required she do things to better her circumstance. The government would have enabled her to continue in her circumstance because that government program's job is to give things and money, and not scrutinize how and why her circumstance came about, then place value judgements upon her so she could try to prevent them from happening again in the future.
There are people I would never help in that manner because they are leeches and takers. They are people who refuse to exercise "personal responsibility" and better their circumstance. As long as some program enables them to continue to be a burden upon society, even though they are capable, they most likely will never change. They will always be takers. To them I owe nothing. To them society owes nothing... and if nothing is what society gave them, they would figure out a way to finally exercise some "personal responsibility" or they would cease to be a burden upon society.
A person's existence does not constitute a right to the earnings and labor of another. If children are involved, remove them from the useless societal taker's care and place them in an environment where they can learn "personal responsibility".
If a person chooses to not save a portion of their earnings, opting instead for tv, fancy high dollar tennis shoes, fast and shiny cars, nice homes etc., is it really society's responsibility to take care of them when they, due to reaching a retirement age and inability, can no longer provide for themselves? I think not. For if they had exercised "personal responsibility" odds are they would not be in this circumstance.
Which system do you think works at creating productive members of society? One where individual liberty and expected "personal responsibility" is the norm... or one where the societal norm allows and enables them to become takers of other people's earnings?
Good intentions are wonderful... but good results are what really matters.
Free market capitalism causes many societal ills. Even someone with a basic working knowledge of world history knows this.
Free market capitalism is the ONLY system that allows every individual, regardless of what class they were born into or currently live in, to drastically improve their circumstance in life through effort and risk. Name a single system, other than free market capitalism where one who was not born into the top 10% can move up into that top 10% without being appointed by someone in that top 10%. Name any system other than free market capitalism where the lot of the ordinary person can be improved by their own efforts and labor. Name any system other than free market capitalism where the standard of living for the poorest is raised anywhere near the levels of those in a society where free market capitalism exists.
If utopian (social) liberalism, socialism, marxism, fascism or communism improved the lot of the ordinary and lowest classes of citizens better than free market capitalism, I could see me supporting it. But it doesn't because it cannot unless all human nature is removed.
Why do I say that? Tell me... Why would anyone work harder or longer or try to be more productive than the next person if they are only going to be given an amount of compensation equal that of the one who slacked off? I know for a fact that if I lived in that type of a system, I would only work as hard and as long as was minimally required to keep from being jailed or killed. Because this reality is in fact human nature, these systems only cause production equal to that of the lowest common denominator.
No amount of utopian idealism, regardless of who is directing it, will EVER change that fact of human nature. It cannot. So until such a system is invented that CAN and DOES produce better results than free market capitalism, I'll support free market capitalism with every ounce of my being.
So they're gonna look at your BMI, weight, and if you smoke cigarettes before they treat you to decide if you're even eligible to receive treatment? Wow
Some Mds do.
The law requires the ER to attempt to stabilize anyone who presents.
Mds in private practice may determine their own criteria for patients they will treat.
There is no such thing as "healthy lungs from a smoker". And cigs should be $10 a pack and all the money should go to health care to pay for the sick smokers.
Cigs cost more than $10 a pack in some cities.The Fed gets a $1 off the top. The rest goes into municipal coffers.
If that's true, then why on earth would conservatives be falsely crying "death panels!" when in fact, under Obamacare smokers will have to pay up and take responsibilty for their own higher health costs???
Nothing new here...
-All Individual policies have been charging smokers higher premiums for a long, long time.
-Some individual policies require physicals or a waist measurment to determine premiums.
-Some group policies are now offering discounts to employers who sponsor and subsidize group plans when those policies exclude smokers.
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.
You have no idea who I am or how I conduct my life. I can guarantee you that I could school you on "personal responsibility" so much it would make your head spin. Get over yourself.
