Do You SUPPORT Finding a Cure for Cancer?

[BackAgain]

True, but if we are going to overspend, at least let it benefit most of the country instead of selected constituency groups who's vote they are trying to buy. I support a balanced budget amendment and a consumption tax to bring down our debt. The problem is when over spending and wasteful spending takes place, it has no impact on the average citizens so most don't are. A consumption tax would make everybody care. We have a consumption tax here in Cuyahoga county. It's 8 cents on the dollar. The rich pay this tax, the poor pay this tax, and everybody in between who buys products here pays this tax. In all fairness it's a state/ county tax, but since everybody pays it, everybody needs to be concerned about the spending.

Your conditional proposition makes some sense if we accept the condition. We are certainly guilty of accepting that condition, “if we are going to overspend…”, for far too long.

With that condition, though, I agree that our spending priorities are all screwed up. We have homeless veterans and homeless children on the streets and in the woods in our land. If we are going to spend money on things like transsexual education in Pakistan before those homeless Americans are first provided some shelter, then obviously our priorities are completely fucked up.

 

[Anathema]

wouldn't even pretend to be able to imagine.

Good thing it doesn't keep you from being an asshole, though. Then you'd just be boring...

It’s been a very large contributor to my growth and experiences as an asshole, to be totally honest with you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You guys seriously don't see what the OP is doing here? This isn't about cancer.

"Do you feel this is fair to folks in the past who had Cancer but had to suffer with no cure?"

Doesn't that ring bells to anyone?

I believe I started out by pointing out his lame, half-assed attempt to draw an analogy.

But since he did such a shit job of it, he has no one to blame but himself if everyone ignores his "Gotcha!" moment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Leading up to the November elections, you'll be seeing a lot of Dims telling voters as long as they keep voting for Dimocrats, they'll be seeing their school loans forgiven.

Will it play with voters, or will it actually piss more voters off than it pleases?

Well, it's going to be very important that the right keep pointing out that those debts don't just magically disappear. Someone is going to pay for that schooling, and if it's not the person getting the degree, it's going to be the taxpayers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It was relevant.

You are, once again, mistaken.

 

[DukeU]

You are, once again, mistaken.

Not all people are capable of admitting they are wrong. It's not as hard or bad as you think, give it a try. There are benefits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your conditional proposition makes some sense if we accept the condition. We are certainly guilty of accepting that condition, “if we are going to overspend…”, for far too long.

With that condition, though, I agree that our spending priorities are all screwed up. We have homeless veterans and homeless children on the streets and in the woods in our land. If we are going to spend money on things like transsexual education in Pakistan before those homeless Americans are first provided some shelter, then obviously our priorities are completely fucked up.

The problem is such a proposal would never pass the Congress yet alone be introduced. They love unsupervised spending; taking money back home to their state. And you are correct, both sides do it.

It's like our ridiculous lawsuits in this country. The solution to stop the problem is a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are responsible for all the costs of the person or entity you tried to sue. Why would they never dream of making such a law? Because many people in our Congress were lawyers, and they're not going to do anything to harm their former industry. It's called taking care of your own first.

 

[BackAgain]

The problem is such a proposal would never pass the Congress yet alone be introduced. They love unsupervised spending; taking money back home to their state. And you are correct, both sides do it.

It's like our ridiculous lawsuits in this country. The solution to stop the problem is a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are responsible for all the costs of the person or entity you tried to sue. Why would they never dream of making such a law? Because many people in our Congress were lawyers, and they're not going to do anything to harm their former industry. It's called taking care of your own first.

I don’t disagree that our current state of politicians will reject the imposition on them of what should already be limits imposed on them. They are hostile to conducting their duties within the constraints of the Constitution.

I believe that if we just shrug our shoulders in response, we are guilty of accepting that unacceptable status quo. We need to collectively hold their damn toes to the fire. Nothing will come easy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not all people are capable of admitting they are wrong. It's not as hard or bad as you think, give it a try. There are benefits.

Is this supposed to be your apology for refusing to admit you were wrong? Because if so, it sucks almost as badly as your attempt to make a point.

 

[DukeU]

Is this supposed to be your apology for refusing to admit you were wrong? Because if so, it sucks almost as badly as your attempt to make a point.

What was I wrong about?

 

[gipper]

I don't think it would play well with a lot of people. As in the OP, what about the people who spent years repaying their loan and finally became debt free within the last five years? If it took you 25 years to repay your mortgage, and your neighbor who only bought his house three years ago was forgiven for his debt to the bank, how would you feel?

What we are talking about here is putting the country in an additional 1.5 trillion of debt when we have the highest inflation in 40 years, increasing interest rates, and a predicted food shortage and recession all to buy votes from a constituency group slowly turning away from the Democrat party.

This is why I believe we need a consumption tax to repay our national debt. If we increase the debt, we increase the consumption tax. Perhaps then people will start to pay attention to all this expensive vote buying that will eventually be the collapse of this country by the Democrat party.

We will never repay the national debt. It’s much too large and there isn’t enough time left. The empire is dying so why bother?

 

[sparky]

Why would they never dream of making such a law? Because many people in our Congress were lawyers, and they're not going to do anything to harm their former industry. It's called taking care of your own first.

change around a few terms here, and maybe some would realize the same scenario applies to a cure Ray

~S~

 

[alexa]

Really? I’m not seeing that. They still treat with chemo, surgery, and radiation just as they did in the 60s. Yeah some things have improved like early detection, but the treatment procedures haven’t changed much.

Enormous sums are made from cancer treatment. I’d say the the profit motive tends to skew things.

I am in the UK but I am sure you have the same opportunities as we have here. One new treatment I can remember off the top of my head is immunotherapy but it is by no means the only one. It very definitely is an on going thing. Last year I was treated for Stage 4 Thymic cancer. That is what it was when discovered and it is a very rare cancer - possibly brought on by previous cancer treatment. It had moved from my thymus to both my lungs and pericardium. Not long ago it would just have been palliative care but they decided to give me one chance. They would try a really heavy chemo and if it worked I would have surgery. If not palliative care. It worked and I am now free of the cancer though it does have a bad habit of recurring. Cancer treatment is moving on all the time as they learn more.
,
Although paying taxes, I paid not one penny directly for my cancer treatment because I live in the UK. I just cannot imagine what it is like to get cancer, for there to be a treatment and not to get it. The US people fund cancer research. I was on a forum once when a member said he had cancer and no insurance so he was going to die. I really hope the US soon joins the rest of the developed world and provides treatment for all. At the moment you pay the most and have the worst outcomes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am in the UK but I am sure you have the same opportunities as we have here. One new treatment I can remember off the top of my head is immunotherapy but it is by no means the only one. It very definitely is an on going thing. Last year I was treated for Stage 4 Thymic cancer. That is what it was when discovered and it is a very rare cancer - possibly brought on by previous cancer treatment. It had moved from my thymus to both my lungs and pericardium. Not long ago it would just have been palliative care but they decided to give me one chance. They would try a really heavy chemo and if it worked I would have surgery. If not palliative care. It worked and I am now free of the cancer though it does have a bad habit of recurring. Cancer treatment is moving on all the time as they learn more.
,
Although paying taxes, I paid not one penny directly for my cancer treatment because I live in the UK. I just cannot imagine what it is like to get cancer, for there to be a treatment and not to get it. The US people fund cancer research. I was on a forum once when a member said he had cancer and no insurance so he was going to die. I really hope the US soon joins the rest of the developed world and provides treatment for all. At the moment you pay the most and have the worst outcomes.

I think your friend is lying to you. Everybody gets treated in this country and payment is figured out later one way or another. The problem with government healthcare is it gives government the right to tell you how to live your life. We don't want that here.

I don't know how close you follow our politics, but last year the boob we have for President mandated (through a bureaucracy) that all industry over 200 employees must make sure their employees are vaccinated or face weekly testing and even termination. The Supreme Court ruled that the government had no authority to place these mandates on private industry. However.......they did have the constitutional ability to have this mandate for healthcare institutions like hospitals and nursing homes because they accept payments from the government to care for people in those facilities.

If covid hit our country with government healthcare, they would have reserved the legal right to force everybody into taking shots they didn't want or need. Again, we don't want to surrender our freedoms and empower government that way.

 

[sparky]

I was on a forum once when a member said he had cancer and no insurance so he was going to die. I really hope the US soon joins the rest of the developed world and provides treatment for all.

Everybody gets treated in this country and payment is figured out later one way or another.

Capitalist medicine vs socialist medicine is not as black/white as most think.

Each has it's pros & cons

Each has the ability to have it's constituency fall through the cracks

Having serve a career in it here opened my eyes

A very ugly side exists ......

~S~

 

[alexa]

I think your friend is lying to you. Everybody gets treated in this country and payment is figured out later one way or another. The problem with government healthcare is it gives government the right to tell you how to live your life. We don't want that here.

I don't know how close you follow our politics, but last year the boob we have for President mandated (through a bureaucracy) that all industry over 200 employees must make sure their employees are vaccinated or face weekly testing and even termination. The Supreme Court ruled that the government had no authority to place these mandates on private industry. However.......they did have the constitutional ability to have this mandate for healthcare institutions like hospitals and nursing homes because they accept payments from the government to care for people in those facilities.

If covid hit our country with government healthcare, they would have reserved the legal right to force everybody into taking shots they didn't want or need. Again, we don't want to surrender our freedoms and empower government that way.

I am not sure why you imagine they would have reserved this right. I see that sort of thing as different to some people getting top treatment and others the dogs dinner. I think our Government did demand care workers get fully vaccinated or loose their jobs. Most of those who were saying no left when the time came and I think though I am by no means sure of this having just sort of heard it in the background but I think care homes became so short of staff that they are now allowed back. I could be wrong on that but I don't feel like checking at the moment. I don't remember the government trying to get anyone else to have it against their will. Obviously necessary safeguards need to be put in but these would be to protect rights and one of the rights I am aware of is the right to refuse treatment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am not sure why you imagine they would have reserved this right. I see that sort of thing as different to some people getting top treatment and others the dogs dinner. I think our Government did demand care workers get fully vaccinated or loose their jobs. Most of those who were saying no left when the time came and I think though I am by no means sure of this having just sort of heard it in the background but I think care homes became so short of staff that they are now allowed back. I could be wrong on that but I don't feel like checking at the moment. I don't remember the government trying to get anyone else to have it against their will. Obviously necessary safeguards need to be put in but these would be to protect rights and one of the rights I am aware of is the right to refuse treatment.

Why do I believe they would reserve that right? Because the court stated that the reason they had that right over healthcare facilities is because government was financially supporting those institutions. So if it's government money that grants them that right, what happens when government is paying for all our healthcare? They would be able to mandate what we must do to avoid associated costs of care if we got covid.

You bring up quality of care and it's a good point. Under our system you are correct. People with better coverage are able to get better treatment than those on Medicaid or other lower quality plans. After all, there are good doctors and not so good doctors. Good hospitals and not so good hospitals. If we went to an all government plan, then everybody would want the good doctors and hospitals and that just isn't possible.

Because of that, then it would become political like everything else in this country. Politicians would then have to takeover and decide who gets the good doctors and who gets the not so good doctors. I can guarantee you that if Democrats were in charge, they would be giving all the best facilities to their likely constituents. It's just how they think. This is how they feel about us Republicans:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Capitalist medicine vs socialist medicine is not as black/white as most think.

Each has it's pros & cons

Each has the ability to have it's constituency fall through the cracks

Having serve a career in it here opened my eyes

A very ugly side exists ......

~S~

You are 100% correct. Anybody that can tell me of a perfect medical system, please let me know which country has it.

Living up north while working, I would run into Canadian drivers all the time. While getting loaded or unloaded, a few drivers would get together outside or in the company cafeteria to have BS sessions. I always tried to bring up healthcare to the Canadian drivers to get personal points of view.

The younger and early middle-aged drivers told me they love their system compared to ours. The elderly drivers told me keep what we have, or we will be sorry one day.

Also living up north we are aware of the Canadians that flood our hospitals and clinics because they can't get the timely care they need in their country. Up there they have the attitude like DumBama. Take a pain pill or something. But pain pills don't completely stop the pain, and on some people (like myself) they have little effect at all. Procedures we can get done in two days it takes two weeks or months to get up north.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I know that if I ever get Cancer I have a 1911 and a .45ACP with my initials engraved on it, as a means to ensure I don’t suffer.

Do it now, beat the rush.

 

[alexa]

Why do I believe they would reserve that right? Because the court stated that the reason they had that right over healthcare facilities is because government was financially supporting those institutions. So if it's government money that grants them that right, what happens when government is paying for all our healthcare? They would be able to mandate what we must do to avoid associated costs of care if we got covid.

[/QUOTE]

It is tax money in the UK. However we are in danger. Boris wants to get us involved in your system. I checked out what that guy would have do to to get his treatment How To Get Cancer Treatment Without Health Insurance I could certainly do without that and I have heard that even people with good health insurance can have problems and need to pay something. Being ill can apparently bankrupt people in the US. You even need to pay to get an ambulance!!!

You bring up quality of care and it's a good point. Under our system you are correct. People with better coverage are able to get better treatment than those on Medicaid or other lower quality plans. After all, there are good doctors and not so good doctors. Good hospitals and not so good hospitals. If we went to an all government plan, then everybody would want the good doctors and hospitals and that just isn't possible.

[/QUOTE]

Most people use the NHS for serious problems not least because once you have some serious illness your health insurance goes spiralling up. What you get extra in private is the choice of Drs and a bit more time spent with them as well as better accommodation and food. It is not uncommon for top physicians to work in the NHS and then have a day or two when they work privately. There was no one who had done my job so I had to go to a major city to have it done. However there was not anyone there who had ever worked with a patient with my illness either. I was given a Consultant who was a top heart surgeon. He managed to get what it was thought would be two operations done it one. I would say you do need to rely more on luck. In England now they get to choose what hospital they want to go to. Every now and then there is some scandal but I bet it is the same with you.

Because of that, then it would become political like everything else in this country. Politicians would then have to takeover and decide who gets the good doctors and who gets the not so good doctors.

[/quote]

It really is just luck and the Dr who quietly looks after his or her NHS patients may well produce better outcomes than the one who also works privately. What seems crazy about the US is that your people need to pay the most but you have among 1st world states, the worst outcomes. Given that it is a bit difficult to argue what you are doing is better.

I can guarantee you that if Democrats were in charge, they would be giving all the best facilities to their likely constituents. It's just how they think. This is how they feel about us Republicans:



View attachment 639002

I grant you do seem to have some problems with your democracy.