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.
The primary objection to Universal Health Care is those that could afford their own private health care do not want to pay for the health care of the people that cannot. To the first group adequate health care is a privilege that must be defended at whatever cost to the unprivileged.
It is a simple variation of the "I've got mine and to hell with you" syndrome.
How many people are you paying to insure through the Obamacare exchange? I'll bet you could find someone who would greatly appreciate you paying for their healthcare.
Having money forcefully taken from one person and given to another. If an individual wants the sick to be taken care of, they should do it themselves and use reason and explanation to get others to do it as well (or even guilt them into it). I don't think it's okay to bring violence into the equation by using the guns of government. There's no logical difference between me personally pointing a gun at someone and taking their money, and me telling somebody else to do it so I don't have to...still theft.
So where do I get my ObamaFood? If it's a "right", then I want mine and am entitled as much as anyone else, maybe moreso since I actually produce and contribute to financially running the country. After all, I have all of the other rights guaranteed in the US Constitution. Can I have it delivered? Down by the main gate, please. I'll have one of the staff bring it in.
I've always wanted a horse, but can't afford it. Do you think I could get Obama to give me one? I'm entitled. I've got a neighbor who feels the same way about new cars.
Having money forcefully taken from one person and given to another. If an individual wants the sick to be taken care of, they should do it themselves and use reason and explanation to get others to do it as well (or even guilt them into it). I don't think it's okay to bring violence into the equation by using the guns of government. There's no logical difference between me personally pointing a gun at someone and taking their money, and me telling somebody else to do it so I don't have to...still theft.
Taxes are not theft, even if they make you so mad you feel the need to have a hissy fit over them.
Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe there would be, maybe there wouldn't but I didn't suggest an extra cent out of your pocket.
So you don't want to subsidize health care but you want others to subsidize your boogeymen? Why don't you just pay for it?
Except where you are concerned.
There would be a lot more extra cents out of both of our pockets and benefitting people we don't know
If you read what I said IT CLEARLY states that I don't know all the threats maybe they are real maybe they are my imaginary boogey man. If you believe it is imaginary then you already know these people running our govt aren't going to close all foreign bases and bring everyone home.
Maybe this solution we take money from the prison healthcare system and make that absolute bare bones and whatever money is saved there we can distribute to law abiding low income health care. I could at least see some good to that it takes from those who deserve nothing and gives to your shelf stocker who is at least trying to contribute. Maybe not a total solution but I think more could get on board with that.
Last edited by Robertfchew; 02-23-2015 at 10:55 AM..
Reason: additional thought
You could say that but you know that that is not the case. The worst anyone can say about those who advocate UHC is that they generally care more about others than about themselves, since most of the most vocal advocates wouldn't necessarily benefit from UHC themselves. That really underscores the problem the critics of UHC have: They can only defend their perspective with either lies or rationalizations based on abject self-motivation, but cannot find such motivations in the advocacy of their opponents.
That the government is political, slow to act, many times incompetent and hardly anyone ever gets held accountable for anything isn't a false position. I want UHC and I still have those concerns. Obamacare is a mess. That people simply don't want to have to mess with something like that when what they have is working is a valid complaint.
Quote:
The moral imperative associated with not flushing other human beings down the toilet does that. The rest of it is just noise. If people want to argue year after year about what changes to make to UHC to make it more efficient and effective that's fine - no problem with that - but satisfy the moral imperative first. Don't dither. Don't delay. Get it done, then - like everything else in life - make it better year after year. ACA didn't satisfy the moral imperative but at least moved us closer than anything else done in the last twenty years. Positive progress. We still need to get the goal, and then all the excuses and other scurrilous dodged can be viewed as constructive cross-talk aimed at making things more efficient and effective.
No, you don't do it politically, wrong, with little care for the details and plan to fix it from there. Doing something wrong just to do something is what is wrong with the government.
I'll say it again. Nationalize the ENTIRE industry. Take the billions upon billions in profits and put it into a better, more affordable system where creativity and progress are not stifled and everyone makes a good living.
Just kick the capitalists out of the healthcare system. There are a thousand other ways to make money in America and affordable healthcare for all will make it that much better.
Blasphemy! Heretic!
At risk of joining you at the stake, I’m gonna agree with you.
Why is it so surprising we, here in US, pay the highest price for health care? & cannot even claim to provide care for 'the least among us' like other developed & in all actuality, more civilized, Countries? Doesn’t Capitalism’s basic profit-driven incentive include the concept of charging as much as possible for providing as few goods & services as possible? Isn't it whatever the market will bear?
I oppose the idea of the federal government being the healthcare insurance provider. When you control the healthcare options/insurance, you have unlimited access to patient records.
After the IRS debacle this is a valid concern despite claims to the opposite. Who has been held responsible for that? The government is doing everything it can to stop that from happening.
Quote:
Also, universal healthcare isn't free. Everyone pays one way or another. This is important when you realize that when our federal government takes control of something, the operating cost and inefficiency of operation goes up fast. I fully support offering assistance to those who've fallen on hard times and can no longer afford their own insurance. What I don't want is to support those who choose to not support themselves.
No help should be permanent. (outside of valid handicaps)
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.
