Leftists in denial about healthcare

[manifold]

Insurance companies make decisions like that every day in deciding what procedures to cover and on whom? And yes, billionaires are welcome to get a high risk procedure if they want one

But to use this as a justification that nobody should have affordable healthcare is ridiculous. Decisions will always have to be made in healthcare

That does not mean we should stop trying to make healthcare available to all Americans

I agree.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Health care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory.
Your favorite subject believes in the sanctity of life, yet you do not. Why?

 

[manifold]

Your favorite subject believes in the sanctity of life, yet you do not. Why?

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

I never said "dems".

But definitely the leftist dipshits who post here.

My fault. I didn't use the proper label.


Let me try again...

The only thing thats absurd is that you think your example in the OP is something that the left are arguing for.

 

[manifold]

The only thing thats absurd is that you think your example in the OP is something that dems are arguing for.

I never said "dems".

But definitely the leftist dipshits who post here.

My fault. I didn't use the proper label.


Let me try again...

The only thing thats absurd is that you think your example in the OP is something that the left are arguing for.

I hope you're right. But that would mean that several posters here claiming to be on the left do not in fact represent the arguments of the left. Again, that would be a good thing IMO.

 

[RDD_1210]

I never said "dems".

But definitely the leftist dipshits who post here.

My fault. I didn't use the proper label.


Let me try again...

The only thing thats absurd is that you think your example in the OP is something that the left are arguing for.

I hope you're right. But that would mean that several posters here claiming to be on the left do not in fact represent the arguments of the left. Again, that would be a good thing IMO.

The extremists, on either side, are never representative of the greater group.

 

[manifold]

My fault. I didn't use the proper label.


Let me try again...

The only thing thats absurd is that you think your example in the OP is something that the left are arguing for.

I hope you're right. But that would mean that several posters here claiming to be on the left do not in fact represent the arguments of the left. Again, that would be a good thing IMO.

The extremists, on either side, are never representative of the greater group.

Exactly. However extremists rarely see themselves as such.

 

[lehr]

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.

every republican on that stage lives in denial - not one of them have the gust to call demokrats communists - newt comes close by calling obama a socialist !

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If it was your daughter or son who didn't have the money, would you feel the same way?

If saving my life meant I had to kill you, do you think I would hesitate to kill you?

You don't judge laws by what people in a desperate situation will do.

 

[Si modo]

Fundamentally, the left is all about utopian ideals. Reality is irrelevant.

 

[Lady_Godiva]

I agree with Manifold.

This is the country of opportunity.

Not the country of hand outs. If you want something, work for it.

If I work my bum all day for my HC, why should someone sitting at home watching Jerry Springer have the same HC and entitlements and I am paying for them?

Obumbacare does not work in a country our size and with so many people not contributing.

My taxes should not go sky high for those reasons.

Most physicians according to the AMA (and also if you know any private practice physicians) can tell you how Obumbacare will fail, it IS fail, and it is estimated to have a shortage of 140,000 doctors within the next 10 yrs due to this.

 

[editec]

acknowledge that guaranteeing that "the healthcare one receives is not influenced by his ability to pay for it" is an unattainable utopian fantasy.

Of course that is an unattainable utopian fantasy.

There's a LOT of utopian fantasies going around right now, isn't there?

The AMERICAN DREAM is the most obvious of those.

Obviously we can't ALL be rich at the same time, can we? If we were all rich who would take out the garbage?

Our CAPITALIST system acknowledges (with its theory of capital formation) that some people must be wealthy investors and others less wealthy workers, does it not?

So if that must be, then how can the American DREAM make any sense?

Dreaming the Amerian DREAM makes about as much sense as basing your hopes on buying lottery tickets, really.

Capitalism is based on the assumption that some people ARE going to have money to invest, but MOST will not.

Capitalism is dependent on that inequality of wealth to work.