UK Moves to Deny Surgery to Smokers

[red states rule]

And in another thread you talk about the Constitution, be so kind as to show us hearless bastards where in the Constitution A) the Federal Government is responsible for private health care B) this gives them the right to choose which " Life styles" are acceptable and should be covered or cut off from medical care.

It is for the common good - that is all that matters to the left

 

[mattskramer]

It is for the common good - that is all that matters to the left

So what is RSR’s position on those who make a mistake and fall on hard times? Imagine the person who trusted Enron and was left with practically nothing. What if that person took a chance, trying desperately to save money, by letting her insurance lapse until he could get another job? Then a storm comes through his town and destroys his home. Then he gets a life-threatening disease like cancer but has no coverage. What would RSR say: “To bad, now get out of my way and go die in the street”? No. I believe in moderation. There should be a safety net (a helping hand up) for those occasional people who fall upon hard times.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So what is RSR’s position on those who make a mistake and fall on hard times? Imagine the person who trusted Enron and was left with practically nothing. What if that person took a chance, trying desperately to save money, by letting her insurance lapse until he could get another job? Then a storm comes through his town and destroys his home. Then he gets a life-threatening disease like cancer but has no coverage. What would RSR say: “To bad, now get out of my way and go die in the street”? No. I believe in moderation. There should be a safety net (a helping hand up) for those occasional people who fall upon hard times.

It is NOT the Federal Governments job, they have no right nor authority to take it up. DO NOT tell me your for Constitutional rights and then make claims like this.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

AS one who works intimately with the health care system, I can tell that the maze of insurance and government rules regarding payment for services is almost indecipherable to the average person and the payments for services themselves often don't cover the costs of those services.

Ahh...now we're getting to the root of the problem! That, plus the illogical laws that couple employment with health insurance, or strongly favor it. Companies get big tax breaks for buying insurance; individuals do not. As you can imagine, the majority of uninsured are self-employed, or work for small employers.

There should be a safety net (a helping hand up) for those occasional people who fall upon hard times.

Yes, I agree. The thing is though, government didn't invent that. There used to be a huge array of private charities, lodges, and hospitals for the indigent which helped people in need. I highly recommend the book "The Tragedy of American Compassion", it has about 400 pages of specifics. What the federal government has done is to muscle in and crowd out private charities. People have less time and money to donate, because they are paying higher taxes to support the government program, and they get the idea that charity is the job of some government bureaucrat.

Then of course you've also got the FDA, whose job used to be simple: make sure drugs are safe and don't kill people. In the 60's, they expanded their role to insure that drugs were both safe and effective. It takes far more time and money to prove that drugs are effective, which means that potentially life-saving drugs are delayed, and drug companies must now jack prices up to cover the higher expenses before their patent expires.

 

[mattskramer]

It is NOT the Federal Governments job, they have no right nor authority to take it up. DO NOT tell me your for Constitutional rights and then make claims like this.

Okay. I have simple “yes or no” questions. Would you advocate the total removal of such things as unemployment insurance, social security, and laws that require hospitals to treat indigent patient with acute life-threatening conditions?

Which ones do you want kept and which ones should be removed?

Do you want all parts of government safety nets removed to the extent that if one makes mistakes or falls on hard times, he may die in the street?

 

[red states rule]

Okay. I have simple “yes or no” questions. Would you advocate the total removal of such things as unemployment insurance, social security, and laws that require hospitals to treat indigent patient with acute life-threatening conditions?

Which ones do you want kept and which ones should be removed?

Do you want all parts of government safety nets removed to the extent that if one makes mistakes or falls on hard times, he may die in the street?

After $9 trillion spent on wealth transfers in the last 40 years - libs say the problem is worse

How much more do you want to "fix" the "problem"?

 

[mattskramer]

After $9 trillion spent on wealth transfers in the last 40 years - libs say the problem is worse

How much more do you want to "fix" the "problem"?

As I expected, you will not give straight answers to the simplest of questions. Should I have expected anything more from you? No.

Anyway, I will answer your question. There is no perfect solution or fix. We try to strike a balance. I think that we reached a fair enough balance. I do not want much more money spent on welfare. I do not want much less spent on welfare. I think that we have sufficient aid for those who face difficulties while encouraging people to be productive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay. I have simple “yes or no” questions. Would you advocate the total removal of such things as unemployment insurance, social security, and laws that require hospitals to treat indigent patient with acute life-threatening conditions?

Which ones do you want kept and which ones should be removed?

Do you want all parts of government safety nets removed to the extent that if one makes mistakes or falls on hard times, he may die in the street?

I want those programs removed from federal responsibility YES. It is NOT a power the Federal Government has.

You want the Government to have those powers? Then get a Constitutional Amendment passed authorizing it.

There are a HOST of illegal actions by our Government, most are claimed to fall under the Interstate Commerce clause. Education is another one, it is NOT a Federal power, never has been and never was intended to be one.

Social Security is shell game. The only reason it is going to "run" out of money is because the funds are not saved and used just for that purpose, they are "general" funds, used to pay for any program the Congress wants. Not only is it illegal it is poorly run and maintained.

 

[maineman]

You want the Government to have those powers? Then get a Constitutional Amendment passed authorizing it.

you want government to NOT have those powers? then get a supreme court that will make that determination. until then, the government DOES have those powers. deal with it.

 

[mattskramer]

I want those programs removed from federal responsibility YES. It is NOT a power the Federal Government has.

You want the Government to have those powers? Then get a Constitutional Amendment passed authorizing it.

There are a HOST of illegal actions by our Government, most are claimed to fall under the Interstate Commerce clause. Education is another one, it is NOT a Federal power, never has been and never was intended to be one.

Social Security is shell game. The only reason it is going to "run" out of money is because the funds are not saved and used just for that purpose, they are "general" funds, used to pay for any program the Congress wants. Not only is it illegal it is poorly run and maintained.

Wow. I guess that we agree to disagree. You would have government safety nets removed so that, if someone falls onto hard times and private charity rejects him, he dies in the street. We agree to disagree. I would have a government run safety net to give a hand up.

 

[mattskramer]

you want government to NOT have those powers? then get a supreme court that will make that determination. until then, the government DOES have those powers. deal with it.

Exactly. Take it to court.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Exactly. Take it to court.

Ok, then EVERY action Bush takes is LEGAL, stop belly acheing about them unless YOU take them to Court.

 

[Edward]

The difference would be that you could choose a different insurance company or doctor. This isn't the case in the UK, to my knowledge.



You don't give a damn...but you obviously support the UK's new policy.

Learn how to read moron because I don't support the UK's new policy. I made a point about how some people are bitches because they complain about one thing while doing the exact same thing in a different context. My point is that some people have been so warped by the power they get from being able to vote that they think they have the right to have an opinion on every subject and that their opinion is the only one that matters. It is these people who do not have a problem with the government denying women an abortion but who object when the government decides that health care coverage isn't going to be provided to those who smoke that need to get a fucking clue. They get upset when the democratically elected leaders and appointed officials in a democracy vote to deny health coverage to smokers but applaud jackasses who agree with them when the democratically elected leaders and appointed officials in a democracy vote to deny women an abortion.

 

[Edward]

Who gets to decide which "life styles" are unacceptable and do not deserve medical care? As long as we are on it, I must assume from this post you are totally opposed to medical care for Gays? Talk about a life style that disregards safe medical practices.... Aids is a terminal condition, why not just save the time and money and kill anyone with it?

Tell that to the cocksuckers like you who work for the insurance companies because they routinely deny medical coverage to people with diseases such as HIV and cancer. It seems to me that you are upset that the government of England is denying health coverage to people who smoke but I don't hear you objecting when capitalists who work at insurance companies do the same.

 

[Edward]

It doesn't matter how, why or in what manner someone got AIDS, it is terminal. Using your logic, we shouldn't waste time and money on anyone that is just going to die anyway. Same with a lot of other diseases. WHO EXACTLY gets to decide what and whom gets treatment?

According to capitalists the people who are seeking to make a profit in the health care industry get to decide what and whom gets treatment. It seems you don't have a problem objecting to the government deciding who gets government health coverage in England but don't seem to care that people routinely do this sort of thing in this country in order to increase profits and to drive down costs. The England is deciding to drive down costs by denying health coverage to those who have smoked within a specified period of time seems to upset you. Why don't you take your sense of outrage and focus it on the jackasses like you who do this sort of thing in our country in order to make money for them and their retarded families.

 

[Edward]

Will the left want the government to provide car insurance to those who do not have it?

People are not cars you evil piece of shit. They are not commodities to be bought and sold by evil pieces of shit such as yourself. People don't have to drive or own a car and therefore the government has no business in providing car insurance to people since cars are a commodity and the laws of scarcity apply to car ownership. You get to decide to buy a BMW or a $500 used Ford truck and you are expected to provide for that. Many people simply cannot afford a car or car insurance because they are bought out of the market. There is nothing wrong with this because cars are a luxury item and the laws of scarcity requires that at least one person doesn't receive it otherwise it has not value. This happens in the health care industry as well and there is the problem. Health isn't an optional commodity except in the sick minds of people like George Bush who thinks that cutting health insurance for children (CHIP) is a management problem. There is no doubt that you are evil and that those who you vote for are evil and I will do everything within my power to prevent you and the sick bastards who agree with you from making people into nothing more than a commodity. Let's see if we can cut off the fire protection you receive from your city and make you pay for fire and police protection and see how your retarded ass feels, but of course that is different because you want the rest of us to pay to make sure your house doesn't burn down. Let's remove government funding of police and fire and have the law of scarcity apply to it and when your house burns down or your wife is raped because you cannot afford the services of the most advanced police and fire agency that is closest to your home we will all say, "if he worked more he could afford more police coverage and more fire coverage." You can give all the rationale you want for your evil opinion such as people are property but I for one will not wait around as you sick bastards destroy people including little children who die from something as minor as a toothache because they were a management issue and do not have health insurance.

 

[Edward]

So what is RSR’s position on those who make a mistake and fall on hard times? Imagine the person who trusted Enron and was left with practically nothing. What if that person took a chance, trying desperately to save money, by letting her insurance lapse until he could get another job? Then a storm comes through his town and destroys his home. Then he gets a life-threatening disease like cancer but has no coverage. What would RSR say: “To bad, now get out of my way and go die in the street”? No. I believe in moderation. There should be a safety net (a helping hand up) for those occasional people who fall upon hard times.

His position would be, "one less person to vote and interefere with my power to reign over the entire United States and with my narrow interperetation of the constitution." There were times when men, women and children were left without health insurance coverage and if they got sick, or injured on the job they would be terminated and left to fend for themselves. Often, they simply died. It doesn't matter to people like RSR that these are human being as they are simply property to be bought and sold on the free market which isn't free in this country. Health insurance isn't a privelige or a commodity just like police and fire protection are not a scare commodity. You don't wake up to find a burgler in your home and run to the telelphone and find a list of police agencies who provide police protection and then dial the one nearest to you who responds by saying, "sorry, your coverage for police protection is no longer in good standing because you haven't paid your police bill that was due yesterday." In the background you hear the screams of a child who watches his mother get raped, and then shot in the head as the police agency states, "we are sorry. You can try an alternative police provider. If you would like we will transfer your call to them right now." But it is to late as the intruder has found Mr. Doe and has blown his head all over the wall. RSR then complains about the senseless libs who think that the government should pay for police protection as there is no where in the Constitution that mentions the government providing police coverage.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Tell that to the cocksuckers like you who work for the insurance companies because they routinely deny medical coverage to people with diseases such as HIV and cancer. It seems to me that you are upset that the government of England is denying health coverage to people who smoke but I don't hear you objecting when capitalists who work at insurance companies do the same.

Ahh so you know who I work for now? Did your little crystal ball tell you?

 

[maineman]

Ok, then EVERY action Bush takes is LEGAL, stop belly acheing about them unless YOU take them to Court.

whatever... the point being: YOU are not the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, the supreme court is. Your opinion about the constitutionality of the powers of government is not worth a bucket of warm spit. Get over it... or get a law degree...get nominated to the supreme court...get confirmed, and THEN your opinion will be worth one ninth of something.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

whatever... the point being: YOU are not the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, the supreme court is. Your opinion about the constitutionality of the powers of government is not worth a bucket of warm spit. Get over it... or get a law degree...get nominated to the supreme court...get confirmed, and THEN your opinion will be worth one ninth of something.

Ahh so from now on when you or one of your allies INSISTS Bush is breaking the law, violating the Constitution etc etc, I can quote this post as proof your a whining little nobody with no right to your opinion?