Political Beliefs 101: Who should pay for Health Care?

[emilynghiem]

No. 8... Combination...

--------------------------------

Starting baseline...

• Kill-off the big healthcare insurance companies
• Break up Big Pharma into Baby Bells Pharmae
• Everybody pays into the new National Healthcare Service
• National Healthcare Service pays the providers
• NHS sets prices for procedures and services using region-specific scales
• NHS sets prices for drugs
• Congress forced to use the same system as everybody else

The only problem with that is when government is the only way to get healthcare, they dictate how you will live your life.

If you smoke cigarettes, pay for it yourself because government will refuse to. Same with recreational narcotics. Too many beers a week? Not our problem. You have to take random breathalyzer tests to get government coverage. Too fat? Better lose some weight according to big brother.

When government controls healthcare, they control the people. Because nearly everything we do in life is related to healthcare.

Obese patients and smokers banned from routine surgery in 'most severe ever' rationing in the NHS

Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions

Thank you Ray From Cleveland
I think you said most diplomatically and articulately
what others meant or implied by their posts that weren't so polite
about this problem.

I do believe we can work with govt to publish
standardized price lists that everyone has equal access to.
But what we do with those prices can vary.

I could see all people and parties embracing or incorporating
the cooperative model into their membership structures
to save time and money as well as protect equal access
to services as each believes in funding, so this avoids conflicts.

What I am most curious about, along with if parties will start
implementing these programs into their memberships and precincts,
is if Govt officials could be petitioned to adopt coop models as well.

And if so, if taxmoney owed back to the public for the unconstitutional fiasco including corporate handouts to insurance interests and legal/admin expenses could be refunded or credited back to
the States, parties or people to invest in setting up their own cooperatives that WOULD respect freedom of choice and beliefs,
and would not unconstitutionally deprive anyone of liberty and due process.

If we could use this model to remedy the problems brought up or caused by ACA conflicts in policies, that might also set up better ways to address individual policies in general. Since as you state, health care involves so many levels. By the time we individualize the programs to manage that, wouldn't that solve similar issues with managing any number of areas that govt has bungled up due to differences among people and groups?

 

[emilynghiem]

The elites need people like you to bend over so that they can make their billions.

And politicians need you to make their millions and give them power.

That is incoherent.

Dear Tommy Tainant and Ray From Cleveland
Sounds like you are both complaining that those with collective power (whether collective political or collective corporate entities) BOTH end up oppressing individual rights, freedom and equal protections/representation.

Either way, whether you blame big govt or blame big corporate or political party interests, the common problem is not protecting the consent and choice of INDIVIDUAL citizens from entities with greater collective influence, resources and authority, so that gets ABUSED.

We all know this, but want to blame different groups for it.

Again, why not give the power back to individuals, and take advantage of local cooperatives to have COLLECTIVE negotiating power and leverage but WITHOUT losing accountability and free choice.

No Tommy Tainant it doesn't take going through huge national govt before protecting people's rights. From what I learned based on researching the predicted costs of 1500 member groups, that size group generates $5-10 million dollars spent on health and medical care. So that's plenty of leverage to elect and select the policies and programs those people want to fund.

You have more power than you think. Instead of fighting over who's more to blame, why not solve problems directly so NO large group can take advantage of individuals.

 

[sakinago]

No excuse for smoking....wanna smoke? Pay higher premiums.

If healthcare is a right, it’s not a privelage and government is to provide whatever care I need.

 

[emilynghiem]

Insurance companies only pay providers the minimum they have to which is based on Medicare rates.

Doctors, clinics, and hospitals are more likely to collect payments
by getting paid contracts directly with cooperatives rather than go through govt or insurance hassles.

I would not expect "govt to pay full bills" unless people agree what those costs are and the terms.
Otherwise, you end up with taxpayers protesting they don't want to pay for smokers or drug addicts
who refused to get treatment for addiction and drove up the price of care.

No, the law is you cannot charge one entity more than another. It has nothing to do with what they collect.

In other words let's say that you need surgery, and it costs 500K. The facility cannot charge 700K to Medicare, and 400K to private insurance because private insurance will pay the entire bill. You have to charge 500K to both.

So Medicare will only pay 350K of that bill, and the provider eats the rest. Private insurance will pay what's provided in the policy; they have to by law. So now the facility has to find a way to recoup that government loss. So they up the price to 600K for that surgery for everybody. Again, private insurance will pay the 600K, and Medicare will pay the 400K.

This is why when you see medical facilities close down, it's usually in lower income areas where the clientele is mostly government patients. There are few private insured patients to recoup government losses. In fact in the past, some doctors and facilities were refusing new government patients of any kind.

Ray From Cleveland

No, from what I understand insurance pays providers close or at medicare rates.
For every 800 that the client pays to insurance, 200-250 goes to the provider.
(Those figures are according to the team including the attorney writing the contracts
for the providers.)

These coops allow direct payment to Primary caregivers that each chapter chooses to serve those members.
The pricing is between 110-130% of medicare rates, to make sure they equal or beat the rates that provider would get from insurance.
Minus the billing paperwork and admin costs of claims etc.

They also negotiated terms to buy insurance at lower rates without exclusions such as preexisting conditions,
and with no deductibles and either no or much lower copays.

What they do for the federal funded low income is have them go to the federal funded clinics.
The hospitals they have in the network already signed contracts agreeing to accept Medicare rates.
Other hospitals in the network agreed to serve the ERISA group plan patients that have a different service structure.

So whatever differences you are talking about,
the different clinics and hospitals already agree as to what level of patient plan
they agree to service under what contractual terms.

ie both patients and physicians benefit on their side
from cutting out insurance and govt red tape. The federally
funded clinics can still operate as an option for low income
patients who can't pay anything. But this still reduces backlog
and bureaucracy by managing the majority of services at a
primary care level that is done by retainer and not claims adding higher admin costs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Insurance companies only pay providers the minimum they have to which is based on Medicare rates.

Doctors, clinics, and hospitals are more likely to collect payments
by getting paid contracts directly with cooperatives rather than go through govt or insurance hassles.

I would not expect "govt to pay full bills" unless people agree what those costs are and the terms.
Otherwise, you end up with taxpayers protesting they don't want to pay for smokers or drug addicts
who refused to get treatment for addiction and drove up the price of care.

No, the law is you cannot charge one entity more than another. It has nothing to do with what they collect.

In other words let's say that you need surgery, and it costs 500K. The facility cannot charge 700K to Medicare, and 400K to private insurance because private insurance will pay the entire bill. You have to charge 500K to both.

So Medicare will only pay 350K of that bill, and the provider eats the rest. Private insurance will pay what's provided in the policy; they have to by law. So now the facility has to find a way to recoup that government loss. So they up the price to 600K for that surgery for everybody. Again, private insurance will pay the 600K, and Medicare will pay the 400K.

This is why when you see medical facilities close down, it's usually in lower income areas where the clientele is mostly government patients. There are few private insured patients to recoup government losses. In fact in the past, some doctors and facilities were refusing new government patients of any kind.

Ray From Cleveland

No, from what I understand insurance pays providers close or at medicare rates.
For every 800 that the client pays to insurance, 200-250 goes to the provider.
(Those figures are according to the team including the attorney writing the contracts
for the providers.)

These coops allow direct payment to Primary caregivers that each chapter chooses to serve those members.
The pricing is between 110-130% of medicare rates, to make sure they equal or beat the rates that provider would get from insurance.
Minus the billing paperwork and admin costs of claims etc.

They also negotiated terms to buy insurance at lower rates without exclusions such as preexisting conditions,
and with no deductibles and either no or much lower copays.

What they do for the federal funded low income is have them go to the federal funded clinics.
The hospitals they have in the network already signed contracts agreeing to accept Medicare rates.
Other hospitals in the network agreed to serve the ERISA group plan patients that have a different service structure.

So whatever differences you are talking about,
the different clinics and hospitals already agree as to what level of patient plan
they agree to service under what contractual terms.

ie both patients and physicians benefit on their side
from cutting out insurance and govt red tape. The federally
funded clinics can still operate as an option for low income
patients who can't pay anything. But this still reduces backlog
and bureaucracy by managing the majority of services at a
primary care level that is done by retainer and not claims adding higher admin costs.

 

[emilynghiem]

No excuse for smoking....wanna smoke? Pay higher premiums.

If healthcare is a right, it’s not a privelage and government is to provide whatever care I need.

Dear sakinago and initforme

These issues you bring up are the MAIN reason I recommend that PARTIES consider
implementing health care policies for their own RESPECTIVE members,
who are free to affiliate and elect these democratically according to "like beliefs" among their self-chosen groups
used for representation (not only policies on smoking, but other drugs, or also on abortion and reproductive care).

Disagreements among party members can still be resolved
by separating into subgroups, but WITHOUT IMPOSING conflicts
or costs on OTHER PARTIES that don't have those same disagreements. They will have their own!
So each Party can be held SEPARATELY responsible for
the costs and terms of their OWN members and beliefs. And avoid interfering with
each other's, similar to any other religious organizations. Parties are similar,
because they espouse and advocate certain political beliefs or religions/creeds.

That makes more sense to me, to have people sign up and set up their
policies for paying for health care through political or religious groups,
or other organizations they can choose to affiliate through.

(The govt would just ensure that people either check the option on their tax form indicating where
they want their taxes to go to pay for health care programs; or we could get
medical and health care costs set up as 100% tax deductible, either way.
If state or federal grant money goes to hospitals and health care programs,
the FUNDING can come from the govt but the PROGRAMS can still be
operated democratically by the institutions of the people's choice.
Perhaps the govt could maintain facilities so there is equal access to sites
per district proportional to the populations. While the PROGRAMS are NOT dictated but chosen freely
by each community, regardless if they choose going through govt, church charity, nonprofit or business.)​

What if banks offered group policies their customers could sign up for?
They already have their clients' confidential information.

What if health care plans were set up through school district,
electoral college or party precinct. Then having meetings and training
on signing up, renewing or changing their policies can be done at
established community centers per district.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

Good question dblack

Tommy Tainant
If you believe lifesaving medications like insulin
should be provided for humane reasons,
which institution do you trust to manage that:
churches and nonprofits such as Doctors Without Borders,
AmeriCares or maybe an organization specializing in diabetic needs?

Why would you trust govt to administer such a program?
Do you mean having insulin offered "at cost" at federal clinics if
people cannot afford it otherwise?

If you look at the mess after FEMA tried to handle hurricane disaster claims
in a few states, what makes you think federal govt can handle sensitive medical
needs individually for each person?

It makes more sense to me that individuals could better manage
these costs and choices in ways that ALLOW freedom to work
with various institutions, whether charity or govt or business/nonprofits or schools.

Why not allow the freedom of choice of what people believe in funding?
If some want to focus on housing, or diabetics, or medical care for all,
there are ways to stop wasting resources so we CAN fund these VOLUNTARILY.

If you saw the mess after Harvey, I think you'd think twice about govt.
I only got help myself from two nonprofit foundations that didn't make me
jump through as many hoops. If nonprofits don't work effectively, they
don't get funding or support. If govt doesn't work, the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.
Where is the accountability in that?

The NHS manages it very well in the UK. My Mam goes to the pharmacy ,signs a receipt and they give her the medication. No money changes hands. I understand that most of the western world does similar. It really isnt a complex problem. There are slight variations though. In Wales all prescriptions are free.so patients do not have to hand over any cash. In England there is a nominal charge for drugs but , again, it is free for diabetics. That ,to me, reflects true freedom.

Its not "free" though. She has worked and paid taxes all of her life so she is entitled to this. It is her right.

Try to think of the NHS as a health insurance scheme.Everybody pays in but not everybody will use it. That is insurance, it is a collective undertaking that ensures we are all covered.

Your system seems to be hugely complicated and it appears to me that the drug companies exploit this complexity to make huge profits. In the UK there is only one customer and the NHS calls the shots.

.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-u-s-pays-3-times-more-for-drugs/

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. prices for the world's 20 top-selling medicines are, on average, three times higher than in Britain, according to an analysis carried out for Reuters.

The finding underscores a transatlantic gulf between the price of treatments for a range of diseases and follows demands for lower drug costs in America from industry critics such as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The 20 medicines, which together accounted for 15% of global pharmaceuticals spending in 2014, are a major source of profits for companies including AbbVie, AstraZeneca , Merck, Pfizer and Roche.

Researchers from Britain's University of Liverpool also found U.S. prices were consistently higher than in other European markets. Elsewhere, U.S. prices were six times higher than in Brazil and 16 times higher than the average in the lowest-price country, which was usually India.

The article more or less states that US patients are getting screwed but that is the "free market" operating and the greed that underpins it. There are no private jets in the NHS.

 

[emilynghiem]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

Dear Tommy Tainant cc dblack
REGARDLESS if the difference in opinion/belief is about insulin, or other medicine or health care,
Where is there any legal requirement that ONE policy on this should be imposed for ALL PEOPLE?

When people AGREE to terms of a contract, then we can make this a law without conflict.
When we do NOT agree on terms, then we negotiate until we resolve objections or conflicts
so that the contract we make DOES REFLECT MUTUAL CONSENT of the parties to that contract.

What is so hard about that?

Now, when people try to make a common policy concerning a BELIEF,
this is easier if they agree on beliefs. It is more likely IMPOSSIBLE to form
a contract trying to impose one side's values or beliefs over the other side(s).

It is more likely to form an agreed contract or policy
by sticking to NEUTRAL terms of AGREEMENT and somehow
accommodating or avoiding any terms that are biased for or against
the beliefs of one side over the other. Better to avoid that, and work
out a solution that DOESN'T depend on IMPOSING such a bias in beliefs.

NOTE: If that is TOO HARD to do, that's a good sign that issue
needs to be addressed on a separate person or local level
and not try to make "one policy for all" if the group is too broad and diverse.
This is how I explain why the First Amendment bars Govt from
"establishing or prohibiting" religion, to AVOID conflicts over those
which prevent agreement on policy. That's why you don't allow govt to
try to legislate or regulate policies that touch on personal biases in beliefs.
It won't work anyway, because people cannot be forced to change their beliefs,
and certainly not through govt!​

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: "The NHS manages it very well in the UK. My Mam goes to the pharmacy ,signs a receipt and they give her the medication. No money changes hands. I understand that most of the western world does similar. It really isnt a complex problem. There are slight variations though. In Wales all prescriptions are free.so patients do not have to hand over any cash. In England there is a nominal charge for drugs but , again, it is free for diabetics. That ,to me, reflects true freedom.

Its not "free" though. She has worked and paid taxes all of her life so she is entitled to this. It is her right.

Try to think of the NHS as a health insurance scheme.Everybody pays in but not everybody will use it. That is insurance, it is a collective undertaking that ensures we are all covered.

Your system seems to be hugely complicated and it appears to me that the drug companies exploit this complexity to make huge profits. In the UK there is only one customer and the NHS calls the shots."
===============

Dear Tommy Tainant:

1. The UK does not have the same diversity of population and states as the US.
To compare a similar geographic region and population might point to
a single US "state" managing health care policy for that population, not national.
This is not a fair comparison to begin with.

2. Cooperatives would allow the choice of either minimum members needed per group,
or as large a group as those members want to organize with. For example, if all Democrats
want to pool their resources together, to pay for Planned Parenthood while other groups don't want to fund that, they are free to affiliate and plan their own terms for their own members.

The discounts rates would not change after 1500,
but the ease of access and admin costs would go up with a larger group.
(Within employer groups, 50 or more can get ERISA level discount rates
that smaller groups are not eligible for. So there are better discounts
for companies with 50 or more employees.)

Other than that, what is the purpose for trying to cover a larger population all under one policy, when that is better served by multiple smaller chapters of 1500 each.

Like the 50 states under one union, if they all CHOOSE and AGREE on a national
policy that's fine, such as for national security that affects the entire nation as a whole.
But for individual choices of health plans and services,
doesn't it make more sense to localize it as much as possible while still accessing
the same discount group rates?

 

[emilynghiem]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

Dear Tommy Tainant cc dblack
REGARDLESS if the difference in opinion/belief is about insulin, or other medicine or health care,
Where is there any legal requirement that ONE policy on this should be imposed for ALL PEOPLE?

When people AGREE to terms of a contract, then we can make this a law without conflict.
When we do NOT agree on terms, then we negotiate until we resolve objections or conflicts
so that the contract we make DOES REFLECT MUTUAL CONSENT of the parties to that contract.

What is so hard about that?

Now, when people try to make a common policy concerning a BELIEF,
this is easier if they agree on beliefs. It is more likely IMPOSSIBLE to form
a contract trying to impose one side's values or beliefs over the other side(s).

It is more likely to form an agreed contract or policy
by sticking to NEUTRAL terms of AGREEMENT and somehow
accommodating or avoiding any terms that are biased for or against
the beliefs of one side over the other. Better to avoid that, and work
out a solution that DOESN'T depend on IMPOSING such a bias in beliefs.

NOTE: If that is TOO HARD to do, that's a good sign that issue
needs to be addressed on a separate person or local level
and not try to make "one policy for all" if the group is too broad and diverse.
This is how I explain why the First Amendment bars Govt from
"establishing or prohibiting" religion, to AVOID conflicts over those
which prevent agreement on policy. That's why you don't allow govt to
try to legislate or regulate policies that touch on personal biases in beliefs.
It won't work anyway, because people cannot be forced to change their beliefs,
and certainly not through govt!

 

[emilynghiem]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

^ Hey Tommy Tainant I just thought of an equivalent question
If stopping smoking will stop people from smoking themselves to death,
are you saying we should mandate public policies banning the choice of smoking?
Because that kills people?

There are many Christians I know who want to ban abortions
that are terminating the life of unborn children.
Do you agree with their beliefs in banning that to save lives?

Vegans want to ban consumption of meat and production involving animal products.
They argue that if 10% of the North American population gave up meat from our diets,
then we can end world hunger and "save lives."

Do you want to ban meat also?

Where does it end?
As long as someone believes or offers proof that a certain provision will
"save lives" does that mean we should make that govt law for everyone?

In that case, Tommy Tainant let's take a closer look into
medical research on spiritual healing. From what I've found, it's clear to me that public knowledge and access to those natural methods of treatment would save lives from:
cancer, criminal disorders, abuse, addiction, PTSD, and any number of ills.

So if medical science proves this, does that mean
govt should REQUIRE this treatment be provided in order to save lives?
I could see this happening in China, where the govt can dictate whatever it
decides. But in the US the laws are founded on Constitutional values of
free exercise of religion, and not depriving citizens of liberty without
due process to convict them of crimes that require such loss of liberty as penalty under law.

If people AGREE to a law or belief, that's one thing.
But when you go too far and assume that your beliefs
should be imposed on others by govt, that's violating other laws
also included in equal Constitutional protections.

You would need consent in order to make laws involving beliefs.
Or else it violates the principles and spirit of the Constitution.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

^ Hey Tommy Tainant I just thought of an equivalent question
If stopping smoking will stop people from smoking themselves to death,
are you saying we should mandate public policies banning the choice of smoking?
Because that kills people?

There are many Christians I know who want to ban abortions
that are terminating the life of unborn children.
Do you agree with their beliefs in banning that to save lives?

Vegans want to ban consumption of meat and production involving animal products.
They argue that if 10% of the North American population gave up meat from our diets,
then we can end world hunger and "save lives."

Do you want to ban meat also?

Where does it end?
As long as someone believes or offers proof that a certain provision will
"save lives" does that mean we should make that govt law for everyone?

In that case, Tommy Tainant let's take a closer look into
medical research on spiritual healing. From what I've found, it's clear to me that public knowledge and access to those natural methods of treatment would save lives from:
cancer, criminal disorders, abuse, addiction, PTSD, and any number of ills.

So if medical science proves this, does that mean
govt should REQUIRE this treatment be provided in order to save lives?
I could see this happening in China, where the govt can dictate whatever it
decides. But in the US the laws are founded on Constitutional values of
free exercise of religion, and not depriving citizens of liberty without
due process to convict them of crimes that require such loss of liberty as penalty under law.

If people AGREE to a law or belief, that's one thing.
But when you go too far and assume that your beliefs
should be imposed on others by govt, that's violating other laws
also included in equal Constitutional protections.

You would need consent in order to make laws involving beliefs.
Or else it violates the principles and spirit of the Constitution.

You quote some extreme examples Emily but I could counter by suggesting that you do not have to do anything. Why have speed limits ? Why legislate for clean air or water ? Why have legal building standards ? All impinge on my "liberty" as an individual.

But I think you misunderstand the NHS proposition. You are not compelled to use it. You can take private insurance if you wish and many people do so. So you do have choices. And you also have the liberty to not lose your house when you get sick.

 

[dblack]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care in general. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

I don't find it reasonable at all. WTF is everybody so concerned about the poor? Most poor people are that way because they are either lazy, made a lot of bad decisions in life, or both.

The rich can easily afford healthcare with no problem. The poor and their six kids get it for free. It's the middle-class, the people who support this country that get the royal screwing.

If anything, I say it's the middle-class that gets the attention and benefits over the poor. The poor don't contribute anything good to our society. In fact most of them are a financial and social burden. Yet we worry more about them than the productive responsible members of our society.

 

[dblack]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

I don't find it reasonable at all. WTF is everybody so concerned about the poor?

Because most people have a sense of empathy and compassion for those less fortunate than themselves. I think that's a good thing. It's what community is all about. What I have a problem with is expressing that empathy via government. We can care for the poor without forcing it on people with legislation.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Universal health care for all

tell her i said whats up when she tells you you've been denied your eye surgery

no need to see clearly again comrade you are a waste of resources

TheGood news is your advil ration has BEEN INCREASED from 20 pills a month to 15


She may of plundered your chocolate ration

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You should have such a programme. The rest of the civilised world does.

We were discussing your claim that diabetics "should not have to pay for insulin". How do you justify such a claim? Would you make such a claim about any costs of living (food, clothing, housing)?

I dont understand why you find this difficult. If people havent got food then it should be provided. Would you see people starve ? I should point out,again, that we already do this. Diabetics will die without insulin , they need it.

It's not difficult - it's just incoherent and contradictory. You're saying two different things and equivocating on them. Saying that diabetics shouldn't have to pay for insulin is a radically different claim than saying we should we should help diabetics who can't afford insulin. You're pretending they're the same, but they're not.

It's an important distinction because it's exactly the bait and switch going on with health care in general. Liberals sell the reasonable statement that we should help out poor people, and then, once they have people agreeing with them, switch to the claim that no one should have to pay - which isn't reasonable.

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay". We all pay through our taxes. "Free" is a right wing myth to stir up people like Ray who resents his taxes helping people.
I have paid around 40 years of taxes and have seen myself and my family well looked after.It doesnt bother me if my taxes help others because they are helping me. Its just an insurance scheme.

And the first point you make isnt chiming with me. By providing insulin we are implicitly helping people. Nobody should have to pay for it at point of delivery primarily because it has been proven that you do not have to There is a better way..

 

[dblack]

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay".

Yeah?

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Nobody has ever claimed that " no one should have to pay".

Yeah?

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin.

Yeah.

As a diabetic you should not have to pay for insulin. My Mam gets hers free. She has paid taxes all her life and for that she expects to be looked after. She also gets eye tests ,chiropody and other prescriptions "free".

Of course it isnt free but healthcare is a lottery and it is more just when everyone contributes for the common good. Its wrong that you should be penalised for ill health.

Why did you distort the meaning of my post to create a false impression ? Particularly when I clarify that people do have to pay and explain how they pay.