It is obvious, you take no responsibility for the person that you would like to be. No one can do it for you. You must do it on your own.
In Support of Obama's Health Care Law
- Thread starter serenesam
- Start date
It is obvious, you take no responsibility for the person that you would like to be. No one can do it for you. You must do it on your own.
And if a few thousand people suffer and die while the all powerful "invisible hand" works its marketplace magic, well, tough titty, is that about right? Monstrous.
People that worship at the altar of unfettered, unregulated, capitalism are every bit as unreasoning and fanatical, as the most rabid Marxist.
It's only the financially stable US citizens that do not want health care to go this route because they are afraid that the guy that was born into poverty may get the same treatment at a health care facility that they will... they feel they earned to be taken care of first. Pure Greed.
As soon as the US gets over the difference between 'socialism' and 'communism' they can start the healing.
People that worship at the altar of unfettered, unregulated, capitalism are every bit as unreasoning and fanatical, as the most rabid Marxist.
It's only the financially stable US citizens that do not want health care to go this route because they are afraid that the guy that was born into poverty may get the same treatment at a health care facility that they will... they feel they earned to be taken care of first. Pure Greed.
As soon as the US gets over the difference between 'socialism' and 'communism' they can start the healing.
In your job, as an employee of whomever you work for, you are compensated because the company you work for values the skill you provide them. Compensation goes both ways. It's an exchange. You are provided money for skills your employer finds value in. The employer is provided productivity for money. So how exactly can you require just anyone to find value in the skills you may (or may not) have? Thanks, you just convinced me that FDR is in fact the worst President in U.S. history.
And Pure entitlement is all you are. You believe people are somehow owed things from other people simply for taking up space. I am not afraid of a homeless person gettng the same care I do. The fundamental problem with you libs as that you have no personal accountability. You insist that everyone who has a certain condition (poor for example) be treated the same way and given things by the government and totally disregard how people got to that point in the first place. When will you morons get that you aren't really helping people by doing for them what they are capable of doing for themselves?
serenesam
Active Member
- Thread starter
- #65
Which equals more people will not have a job.
So much for the "lazy variable"
Yet a lot conservatives seem to lack understanding that correlation does not equal causation, a very BASIC principle by the way:
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Which equals more people will not have a job.
So much for the "lazy variable"
How does that equal more people without jobs?
Well aware. Tell it to the global warming crowd.
Why exactly is it "greed" for someone who has "earned" money to use that money to get the best medical treatment they can afford? You've lost me there.
What you're saying in essence is that even though one person may have put in years of 80 hour weeks to become successful, that they are being "greedy" if they use the fruits of all that labor to get better health care treatment then someone who has done the bare minimum work wise.
The term "fair" gets bandied around quite often on this board...usually as a reason for why one group of people thinks they should be able to take something that belongs to someone else. I think you're trying to be "fair" here as well.
Hey let's privatize firefighting, police force, libraries and highways too. Only people who can afford it should be able to have access to these things anything else is just socialism. Maybe the rich could buy up all of the land and then allow the poor people to live on it, and charge them 90% of their earnings to live there. We could call the rich people Lords, the poor surfs....
Socialising your medical care does not mean you're socialising the country, your police is free, your libraries are free, your post is free ..... why not health care? Your economics can be run using the profit motive but your health is not something to risk being priced out of.
In the US, it's the insurance companies that are dictating health care treatment but there should be no profit motive in regards to healthcare.
Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception. I believe that the US would benefit from a government run health care and also a privatised health care system like in England. Note that universal health care does not imply government-only health care, as many countries implementing a universal health care plan continue to have both public and private insurance and medical providers.
There's a reason why the US has such a high infant mortality rate and low life expectancy despite it being one of the most powerful and developed nations in the world. Do you not agree that there needs to be some sort of change to their health care system?
I just don't think it's right, letting the poor and even the middle-class workers struggle to get treatment for their health especially if you don't know their circumstances.
Of course that isn't right. In every system, there are peope who abuse it.
But I find it just as wrong that there are rich, spoiled lazy heiresses who live off their billionaire grandpa's money who are able to afford basic health care, versus a single hard-working mother working 3 jobs to support her and her sick kids.
Socialising your medical care does not mean you're socialising the country, your police is free, your libraries are free, your post is free ..... why not health care? Your economics can be run using the profit motive but your health is not something to risk being priced out of.
In the US, it's the insurance companies that are dictating health care treatment but there should be no profit motive in regards to healthcare.
Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception. I believe that the US would benefit from a government run health care and also a privatised health care system like in England. Note that universal health care does not imply government-only health care, as many countries implementing a universal health care plan continue to have both public and private insurance and medical providers.
There's a reason why the US has such a high infant mortality rate and low life expectancy despite it being one of the most powerful and developed nations in the world. Do you not agree that there needs to be some sort of change to their health care system?
I just don't think it's right, letting the poor and even the middle-class workers struggle to get treatment for their health especially if you don't know their circumstances.
Of course that isn't right. In every system, there are peope who abuse it.
But I find it just as wrong that there are rich, spoiled lazy heiresses who live off their billionaire grandpa's money who are able to afford basic health care, versus a single hard-working mother working 3 jobs to support her and her sick kids.
Last edited:
Actually those things aren't free. You pay for them through your taxes. Well I gues their free to the nealry 50% of the population that have no income tax liability, but never mind that. When you start asking these free loaders to start paying their fair share, then you can get on the moral high horse.
NGSamson
Active Member
Only those that are worth it.
Who is going to take care of anyone, once capitalism is out of the system?
The capitalist will move to professions that pay better. What you will have left is people that are slaves to the gov't, that will take out their anger and frustration on their ..... patients.
The financially stable people are dying. They are the ones that give doctors money to do research and then, offer themselves as guinea pigs for new medical techniques. When they can no longer take care of themselves, they employ people to take care of them: nurses, doctors, cooks, drivers, assistants, etc. Those employees have families and those wealthy provide jobs. Some of them pay enough that the facilities can be generous to those that are not wealthy. The doctors that learn new techniques, use them on others to improve the length and quality of life.
Compare that to places where the gov't runs health care:
people starve to death in the hospital
people die of thirst in the hospital
people have to have their families bring them food
people aren't cleaned by the hospital staff on a regular basis
the hospital is not cleaned on a regular basis
people have to wait months for joint replacement
people have to wait months for cancer treatment
Conservatives do not want "unfettered, unregulated, capitalism". They want each person to be personally responsible for their own actions. When people (Christian-like) have enought to provide for their families, they are generous; love your neighbor as yourself. It is the liberals/progressives/communists/socialist/islamists that want to halt individualism, and worship at the alter of the gov't: legion.
Forcing someone to clean up after the mess you made in your life is not a right; it is oppression.
Please remember that there exists people who ARE hard-working but can't afford health care....
You seem to think that everyone in the world has absolute control over every circumstance in his or her life and thatÂ’s just not true. For example: You were born with a pre-exisiting condition that prevents your insurance company from covering your expensive medical bills. Or youÂ’re in college and you graduate and there are no jobs? Or there are jobs, but every one you apply for has a hundred other applicants? ItÂ’s happening all over the country. Will you then have a little sympathy for people who canÂ’t find anything better and struggle to make do with what they can get?
(In my experience if you canÂ’t muster some sympathy for other peopleÂ’s crappy circumstances, youÂ’re not going to make a very good human being. Just saying).
My opinion of the whole situation is individual greed. I donÂ’t believe in a communistic society but I do believe people should have a moral obligation in knowing when enough is enough.
Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance.
Why? Because it's the right thing to do.
The richest country in the world should be able to take care of the old and the sick.
Modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.
Why? Because it's the right thing to do.
The richest country in the world should be able to take care of the old and the sick.
Modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.
ShackledNation
Libertarian
If everyone else in the world reinstated slavery, would you support it? Also, you make the assumption that the old and sick can be bettet taken care of by a government. I would argue a free market system would be best for everyone. Currently the US system is corporatist. Obamacare makes it more corporatist. It exaccerbates the problems.
I am not a conservative, but arguing against government care is not selfish. In my view, government care will do less to help the sick and old than free market care would.
Last edited:
ShackledNation
Libertarian
Nobody is assuming people have absolute control. And being against government run healthcare does not mean you have no sympathy. If people are in dire need of healthcare, if I had the money I would donate it to charity. In the past, doctors provided cheaper care to poor patients because they felt it was right. Private individuals subsidized the poor on their own accord. Now they do not, because government has taken over the role of doing so. In the process, resources are wasted, quality of care declines, debt soars, people have less of their own money to keep, and society no longer feels obligated to do their part in helping the disadvantaged--they have some faceless bureaucrat handle it for them. I don't see that as morally right at all.
People assume for some reason that unless government provides for the less fortunate, the less fortunate will die on the streets or something along those lines. That is simply not a logical or historically accurate assumption. Private charities would be far better at helping those in need because they would have limited budgets. They would have to be efficient. Government can just say "we need to tax the rich more" which will only drain wealth from the economy.
Also, a note on why the poor cannot afford insurance: a) rising prices of everything in the general economy, and b) greater rising prices of health insurance plans. The first is caused by the creation of money by the Federal Reserve system which essentially distributes wealth from the poor and working classes to the rich business and political elites (that is where inequality comes from folks). The second is caused by government mandates on insurance companies, the disconnect between individuals and insurance companies (because of employer-provided insurance) and other government interventions and regulations that make a lower price impossible.
If the problem is that healthcare is too expensive, that can be fixed with less government. If there is still the worry after that problem about providing the poor with care, that can be fixed with more private charity. And if people have more money in their pockets, they will be more likely to give. That is historically what has happened. Its called civil society.
OK, so who gets to make the call on which heirs are "worthy" of their ancestor's fortunes? I'm sorry, Handana but as much as I detest Paris Hilton...that money was left to her by someone that worked hard to amass it in the first place. It's not "our" money to allocate as we please. Rather than try to TAKE what belongs to the wealthy? Why don't we increase the opportunities for those who aren't wealthy to become wealthy? That's what made America great. Income redistribution is a recipe for mediocrity.
ZiemanZnzoru
Rookie
- Oct 10, 2011
- 10
- 2
- 1
you know that there are so many nations where this type of health facilities are not available but they are not blaming any rule .just stand support the things for good cause .
Greenbeard
Gold Member
Need to let that one sink in.
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
Arab Islamic immigrant stabs: all Christians must die’- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 2
-
-
8 UFO Experts Now Mysteriously Vanished Missing Or Dead- Started by toobfreak
- Replies: 2
