Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
homestly, your liberty is more important than a human life, to you.
The liberty we enjoy was bought and paid for in human blood.
Are you suggesting that this was a bad move ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
homestly, your liberty is more important than a human life, to you.
note: thread inspired by rightwinger's cowardly avoidance of a simple question.
I've read several posts today by leftists echoing the same, well-intentioned theme that the healthcare one receives should NOT be influenced by his ability to pay for it. Sure it sounds noble, righteous and compassionate enough at first blush, but when the concept is explored a bit more objectively one realizes that it's pure fantasy at best, or an Orwellian nightmare at worst.
Consider two patients, both suffering from the same malady that left untreated will kill them in less than a month. Furthermore, the treatment for their malady costs over $5 million dollars and increases their chance of survival from zero to 5%. The only difference between the two patients is wealth. One is dirt poor, the other a billionaire. It seems to me that if the billionaire wants to spend the $5 million out of his own pocket then he has every right to do so. However, according to the logic of leftists in denial, if taxpayers don't foot the $5 million for the same treatment for the pauper it is unfair and evil. Short of that, the only way to guarantee that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it", is to deny the billionaire the right to purchase the treatment with his own money.
So to all you leftists in denial, the only way to cure your denial is to either admit that you support an authoritarian solution to healthcare, devoid of individual freedom, or acknowledge that guaranteeing that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it" is an unattainable utopian fantasy.
Perhaps we should have some kind of 'government funding' for healthcare.
How about we all pay into a fund - everyone, no matter how much or how little you earn - everyone pays the exact same rate. That fund is ringfenced for specific, catastrophic illness treatment only. We could define within that tax exactly what will be paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. You get cancer, you won't lose your home because the care will be funded. No matter who you are - that money is available. Whether you are Warren Buffet or clean the floors at Mickey Ds. Should you be a multimillionaire and you choose to pay for a more expensive treatment, that's fine, your money, your choice but the fund would cover the basic care required.
Other than that, you either have insurance, or you take the risk. On your own head be the consequences. And, if you lose your home because you chose not to have insurance, so be it.
Just an idea.
The right is always worried about the poor billionaires.
So true, that odd sentiment and slogans guide them today. The real world of hope and tragedy eludes them. 'Liberty' is meaningless when dead, and like all words that reference a worldview, the word is relative, sometimes useful, most of the time spin and obfuscation.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html
Personally I have a problem with a society that creates such large inequities in the economic structure that one person has a billion dollars and another in the same nation has nothing.
Bear in mind..this is something the founders cautioned against..and with good reason.
Gotta love the leftist spin. If you don't agree that the federal government has, or should have the authority to impose a mandate then you're a poor hating right-wing extremist.
I wonder if some of these dingbats even realize what laughingstocks they are?
note: thread inspired by rightwinger's cowardly avoidance of a simple question.
I've read several posts today by leftists echoing the same, well-intentioned theme that the healthcare one receives should NOT be influenced by his ability to pay for it. Sure it sounds noble, righteous and compassionate enough at first blush, but when the concept is explored a bit more objectively one realizes that it's pure fantasy at best, or an Orwellian nightmare at worst.
Consider two patients, both suffering from the same malady that left untreated will kill them in less than a month. Furthermore, the treatment for their malady costs over $5 million dollars and increases their chance of survival from zero to 5%. The only difference between the two patients is wealth. One is dirt poor, the other a billionaire. It seems to me that if the billionaire wants to spend the $5 million out of his own pocket then he has every right to do so. However, according to the logic of leftists in denial, if taxpayers don't foot the $5 million for the same treatment for the pauper it is unfair and evil. Short of that, the only way to guarantee that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it", is to deny the billionaire the right to purchase the treatment with his own money.
So to all you leftists in denial, the only way to cure your denial is to either admit that you support an authoritarian solution to healthcare, devoid of individual freedom, or acknowledge that guaranteeing that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it" is an unattainable utopian fantasy.
Personally I have a problem with a society that creates such large inequities in the economic structure that one person has a billion dollars and another in the same nation has nothing.
Bear in mind..this is something the founders cautioned against..and with good reason.
note: thread inspired by rightwinger's cowardly avoidance of a simple question.
I've read several posts today by leftists echoing the same, well-intentioned theme that the healthcare one receives should NOT be influenced by his ability to pay for it. Sure it sounds noble, righteous and compassionate enough at first blush, but when the concept is explored a bit more objectively one realizes that it's pure fantasy at best, or an Orwellian nightmare at worst.
Consider two patients, both suffering from the same malady that left untreated will kill them in less than a month. Furthermore, the treatment for their malady costs over $5 million dollars and increases their chance of survival from zero to 5%. The only difference between the two patients is wealth. One is dirt poor, the other a billionaire. It seems to me that if the billionaire wants to spend the $5 million out of his own pocket then he has every right to do so. However, according to the logic of leftists in denial, if taxpayers don't foot the $5 million for the same treatment for the pauper it is unfair and evil. Short of that, the only way to guarantee that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it", is to deny the billionaire the right to purchase the treatment with his own money.
So to all you leftists in denial, the only way to cure your denial is to either admit that you support an authoritarian solution to healthcare, devoid of individual freedom, or acknowledge that guaranteeing that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it" is an unattainable utopian fantasy.
Page 57 of the health bill give the government the right to get at your bank accounts to pay for your medical expences ... Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it
There is a slight problem though ...
The bill is written in such a way as to emply that it is everyones responsibilty to pay for health care. Now if I'm 'responsible' for everyones healthcare, what's to keep the government from taking my money to pay for my mothers treatments if she has no ability to pay?
Take it one step further ... The pregnant woman in the inner city that has no way to cover her medical bills ... If we are all 'responsible' then the in one swift action, the government could LEGALLY strip everyone of their IRA's, 401Ks, saving and checking accounts.
I don't have a problem with universal healthcare, but this piece of legislation is scary
Page 57 of the health bill give the government the right to get at your bank accounts to pay for your medical expences ... Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it
There is a slight problem though ...
The bill is written in such a way as to emply that it is everyones responsibilty to pay for health care. Now if I'm 'responsible' for everyones healthcare, what's to keep the government from taking my money to pay for my mothers treatments if she has no ability to pay?
Take it one step further ... The pregnant woman in the inner city that has no way to cover her medical bills ... If we are all 'responsible' then the in one swift action, the government could LEGALLY strip everyone of their IRA's, 401Ks, saving and checking accounts.
I don't have a problem with universal healthcare, but this piece of legislation is scary
It is a worthwhile discussion at the state level. There are two states that have some form of healthcare (Mass and Tenn). I believe Oregon has something too.
But no federal health care system....period.
Page 57 of the health bill give the government the right to get at your bank accounts to pay for your medical expences ...
Canada has universal healthcare and it does have many problems. And it looks like President Obama has made the plans to set in motion a similar system.
Why must it be one or the other? Let the "billionaire" buy his best healthcare money can bu, and those that prefer the public option can apply for the option.
Perhaps we should have some kind of 'government funding' for healthcare.
How about we all pay into a fund - everyone, no matter how much or how little you earn - everyone pays the exact same rate. That fund is ringfenced for specific, catastrophic illness treatment only. We could define within that tax exactly what will be paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. You get cancer, you won't lose your home because the care will be funded. No matter who you are - that money is available. Whether you are Warren Buffet or clean the floors at Mickey Ds. Should you be a multimillionaire and you choose to pay for a more expensive treatment, that's fine, your money, your choice but the fund would cover the basic care required.
Other than that, you either have insurance, or you take the risk. On your own head be the consequences. And, if you lose your home because you chose not to have insurance, so be it.
Just an idea.
Perhaps we should have some kind of 'government funding' for healthcare.
How about we all pay into a fund - everyone, no matter how much or how little you earn - everyone pays the exact same rate. That fund is ringfenced for specific, catastrophic illness treatment only. We could define within that tax exactly what will be paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. You get cancer, you won't lose your home because the care will be funded. No matter who you are - that money is available. Whether you are Warren Buffet or clean the floors at Mickey Ds. Should you be a multimillionaire and you choose to pay for a more expensive treatment, that's fine, your money, your choice but the fund would cover the basic care required.
Other than that, you either have insurance, or you take the risk. On your own head be the consequences. And, if you lose your home because you chose not to have insurance, so be it.
Just an idea.
Why must it be one or the other? Let the "billionaire" buy his best healthcare money can bu, and those that prefer the public option can apply for the option.
I agree, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
The whole point of the OP was to demonstrate the absurdity of a particular leftist talking point.
Why must it be one or the other? Let the "billionaire" buy his best healthcare money can bu, and those that prefer the public option can apply for the option.
I agree, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
The whole point of the OP was to demonstrate the absurdity of a particular leftist talking point.
The only thing thats absurd is that you think your example in the OP is something that dems are arguing for.