Leftists in denial about healthcare

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
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.
 

Sarah G

When Nothing Goes Right, Go Left
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
51,009
Reaction score
13,243
Points
2,220
Location
NW Ohio
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?
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
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.
 

Sarah G

When Nothing Goes Right, Go Left
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
51,009
Reaction score
13,243
Points
2,220
Location
NW Ohio
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.
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,994
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
:cuckoo:

This is a pretty stupid premise, even for you, mani.

The issue is not that black and white. I've not seen anyone claim $5 million should be spent to give someone a 5% chance of living a longer life.
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
I've not seen anyone claim $5 million should be spent to give someone a 5% chance of living a longer life.
But would you deny the billionaire the right to pay the $5 million out of pocket?
 

yidnar

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
12,282
Reaction score
4,773
Points
315
Location
Inside your head.
you people may be shocked !! But I believe their should be a viable health care plan for the people that have been left out in this country !! and im not talking about medicaid ,im talking about people that have slipped between the cracks ....people that make to much to qualify for medicaid,but don't make enough to pay for medical insurance ....AND IT AINT OBAMA CARE EITHER !!!
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
I've not seen anyone claim $5 million should be spent to give someone a 5% chance of living a longer life.
But would you deny the billionaire the right to pay the $5 million out of pocket?
Of course not. No has said that either.
So despite all your partisan grandstanding, you're acknowledging that sometimes it's ok if one's ability to pay influences treatment decisions. :thup:

Does your mind feel liberated?
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
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.
You are asking the wrong question.

Let us assume your daughter needs that expensive treatment, and that you can actually afford to pay for it. Under a health care system where everyone has equal access to treatment regardless of their ability to pay, you cannot get the treatment for your daughter that has a chance to save her life.

Do you think that is right?
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,994
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
Let us assume your daughter needs that expensive treatment, and that you can actually afford to pay for it. Under a health care system where everyone has equal access to treatment regardless of their ability to pay, you cannot get the treatment for your daughter that has a chance to save her life.

Do you think that is right?
Of course they don't. Even Ravi acknowledges that.

Particularly noteworthy is that once she realized that the leftist talking point that 'everyone should have equal access to treatment regardless of ability to pay' is incompatible with both individual liberty and practical reality, she seemingly ran away from the discussion.

But in her defense, another mal meltdown is hard to resist. :)
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
yes please give the poor the liberty to die.
What's wrong with expanding Medicaid?

I'm not opposed to helping people in need. I am opposed to forfeiting my individual rights in the process.
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams
well the your rights are more important than a human life.
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. :thup:
 
OP
manifold

manifold

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
57,723
Reaction score
8,613
Points
2,030
Location
your dreams

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
148,014
Reaction score
16,459
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
medicaid was expanded to include children and smokers pay for it
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top