Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
medicaid was expanded to include children and smokers pay for it
And why not expand it more to cover the poverty stricken uninsured, in lieu of Obomneycare?
my apologies
for a moment there I thought you might actually be interested in an honest discussion of the topic.
I'll know better next time.
homestly, your liberty is more important than a human life, to you.
my liberty is more important to me than my own life
And why not expand it more to cover the poverty stricken uninsured, in lieu of Obomneycare?
...
This is like a trick question, right?
Nope.
medicaid was expanded to include children and smokers pay for it
And why not expand it more to cover the poverty stricken uninsured, in lieu of Obomneycare?
If getting those people access to healthcare is really what matters, that would do it.
And why isn't that sufficient? Why do we need the mandate?
well the your rights are more important than a human life.
And why isn't that sufficient? Why do we need the mandate?
That's not for poor people (the poor are exempt from the mandate). That's for private insurance markets that can no longer use medical underwriting to prevent free-riding. It's the replacement meant to serve the same function as pre-existing condition exclusions and discriminatory rate setting (which will no longer be allowed). Unsurprisingly, it's about as popular as those things 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.
If it was your daughter or son who didn't have the money, would you feel the same way?
If you're asking me if I would still believe that the billionaire has the right to spend his own money for the treatment even though the odds of success are low, then yes I will always feel that way. But then again I'm a true believer in individual liberty.
No, I'm questioning that you think it's an authoritarian solution to healthcare. Not that a dying person has no choice or say in whether he wants a DNR but that someone who is young and could by some stretch have the same chance as a millionaire.
I'm against just letting someone die because they are poor.
They already do this you know? If you have no equity in your home or any other means to pay, they will deny extending life if the concensus is that you are going to die within 6 months.
I understand why they do it but these are the death panels that Palin talks about. It shouldn't all be about money, we're human beings and can figure things out better, I believe.
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.
The right is always worried about the poor billionaires.