Leftists in denial about healthcare

[Listening]

homestly, your liberty is more important than a human life, to you.

The liberty we enjoy was bought and paid for in human blood.

Are you suggesting that this was a bad move ?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Personally I have a problem with a society that creates such large inequities in the economic structure that one person has a billion dollars and another in the same nation has nothing.

Bear in mind..this is something the founders cautioned against..and with good reason.

 

[Listening]

Perhaps we should have some kind of 'government funding' for healthcare.

How about we all pay into a fund - everyone, no matter how much or how little you earn - everyone pays the exact same rate. That fund is ringfenced for specific, catastrophic illness treatment only. We could define within that tax exactly what will be paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. You get cancer, you won't lose your home because the care will be funded. No matter who you are - that money is available. Whether you are Warren Buffet or clean the floors at Mickey Ds. Should you be a multimillionaire and you choose to pay for a more expensive treatment, that's fine, your money, your choice but the fund would cover the basic care required.

Other than that, you either have insurance, or you take the risk. On your own head be the consequences. And, if you lose your home because you chose not to have insurance, so be it.

Just an idea.

It is a worthwhile discussion at the state level. There are two states that have some form of healthcare (Mass and Tenn). I believe Oregon has something too.

But no federal health care system....period.

 

[Listening]

The right is always worried about the poor billionaires.

So true, that odd sentiment and slogans guide them today. The real world of hope and tragedy eludes them. 'Liberty' is meaningless when dead, and like all words that reference a worldview, the word is relative, sometimes useful, most of the time spin and obfuscation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

Yes, those poor misguided revolutionaries like George Washington.

What a shame all those people died so we could have a United States of America.

 

[Listening]

Personally I have a problem with a society that creates such large inequities in the economic structure that one person has a billion dollars and another in the same nation has nothing.

Bear in mind..this is something the founders cautioned against..and with good reason.

While I agree that such inequities are a problem, I am not sure I know what you are referencing with regards to the founders. Can you supply a link or reference.

 

[Listening]

Gotta love the leftist spin. If you don't agree that the federal government has, or should have the authority to impose a mandate then you're a poor hating right-wing extremist.

I wonder if some of these dingbats even realize what laughingstocks they are?

While I consider myself a conservative, I believe that the GOP has failed in taking control of this discussion. I said, back in 1993 when Hillarycare failed, that this issue would keep coming up and that the GOP had better get in front of it or they would lose it. We do have issues when it comes to people getting access to insurance (not necessarily health care) when they want it.

A key issue is that we don't have an agreement on what society is obligate to do for others in this regard, nor through what medium.

I don't see the key questions being asked in this debate.

 

[Intense]

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.

Personally I have a problem with a society that creates such large inequities in the economic structure that one person has a billion dollars and another in the same nation has nothing.

Bear in mind..this is something the founders cautioned against..and with good reason.

The divide between Rich and Poor existed before the colonies.

Maybe part of the problem is that both arguments support the Status Quo, not fixing the problem of over priced Health Care, but reinforcing it through Mandate. The cost of the Structure is too high. We need true reform, not guaranteed Serfdom in paying for wasted and misguided services. I'm sure Bureaucracy and Paper work is fine for some of you, even your sole means of income, but at what cost to the rest of us?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Manifold: The problem these "liberals" will find out: the key to free health care is to get rid of crime, abuse, drug addiction etc. which I find relies on spiritual healing -- which the religious Christians promote. Not just the Christian Scientists that fought against the health care bill as excluding their practices; but the charismatic Catholics and pentecostals that teach and practice all out exorcisms and deliverance to heal people of schizophrenia, cancer, drug addiction, even homosexuality caused by demonic sickness and abuse.

So sure, if the "liberals" want to go that route toward free health care,
I'm all for it. But the path to get there may take them through the
very fields they have been rejecting. So they will contradict themselves at some point.

The health care mandates already contradict the same pro-choice arguments made by liberals. As spiritual healing is proven to cure diseases and cut the costs of treatment "so that more people can be covered with the same resources" this will show that the health care bill crosses the line between church and state jurisdiction.

You cannot mandate or legislate "spiritual healing" (which is based on forgiveness therapy by its nature is voluntary and freely chosen in order to work), but that is what would have to happen in order to meet the terms of universal coverage. It has to be done through charitable and voluntary/private outreach. The government cannot legislate anything in that area, except in cases of severe criminal illness where public safety and laws would be violated or at risk. Those people proven to be a criminal threat to society and public safety could be required to undergo treatment. All this will have to come out now that the health care mandates have been passed and are being challenged constitutionally.

The liberal politicians who pushed this bill are basically begging the questions.
But I doubt they will like the answers, that will conflict with their arguments for pro-choice and separation of church and state.

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.

P.S. Regarding utopian fantasy: all causes of crime/abuse/disease CAN be healed.
It is not impossible. But it requires accepting if not medically proving spiritual healing that the religious faith-based groups have been practicing for centuries. To them, this is old hat; they've been preaching that there will be heavenly peace someday where all death and disease will be overcome. To people who have rejected these things as impossible miracles, it may come as a surprise that medical science can actually prove how spiritual healing works to cure the mind, body and spirit of illness and addiction. Not impossible.
People have been experiencing and practicing this for years, but because of the rejection of religion and "separation of church and state" the information is censored.

 

[Firehorse]

Page 57 of the health bill give the government the right to get at your bank accounts to pay for your medical expences ... Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it

There is a slight problem though ...

The bill is written in such a way as to emply that it is everyones responsibilty to pay for health care. Now if I'm 'responsible' for everyones healthcare, what's to keep the government from taking my money to pay for my mothers treatments if she has no ability to pay?

Take it one step further ... The pregnant woman in the inner city that has no way to cover her medical bills ... If we are all 'responsible' then the in one swift action, the government could LEGALLY strip everyone of their IRA's, 401Ks, saving and checking accounts.

I don't have a problem with universal healthcare, but this piece of legislation is scary

 

[manifold]

Page 57 of the health bill give the government the right to get at your bank accounts to pay for your medical expences ... Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it

There is a slight problem though ...

The bill is written in such a way as to emply that it is everyones responsibilty to pay for health care. Now if I'm 'responsible' for everyones healthcare, what's to keep the government from taking my money to pay for my mothers treatments if she has no ability to pay?

Take it one step further ... The pregnant woman in the inner city that has no way to cover her medical bills ... If we are all 'responsible' then the in one swift action, the government could LEGALLY strip everyone of their IRA's, 401Ks, saving and checking accounts.

I don't have a problem with universal healthcare, but this piece of legislation is scary

And then some

 

[Offshore]

Page 57 of the health bill give the government the right to get at your bank accounts to pay for your medical expences ... Sounds pretty reasonable doesn't it

There is a slight problem though ...

The bill is written in such a way as to emply that it is everyones responsibilty to pay for health care. Now if I'm 'responsible' for everyones healthcare, what's to keep the government from taking my money to pay for my mothers treatments if she has no ability to pay?

Take it one step further ... The pregnant woman in the inner city that has no way to cover her medical bills ... If we are all 'responsible' then the in one swift action, the government could LEGALLY strip everyone of their IRA's, 401Ks, saving and checking accounts.

I don't have a problem with universal healthcare, but this piece of legislation is scary

Canada has universal healthcare and it does have many problems. And it looks like President Obama has made the plans to set in motion a similar system.
It's very noble that billionaire Bob and Peter Poor are afforded the same access to medical treatment and services. When either of the two need life saving treatment, healthcare funds will determine if it will indeed be afforded or provided for them. The system only has so much to spend....and tax payers are already maxed out paying taxes. Then there is the availibility. If there is only one specialist for the treatment, you can imagine the queue, the wait times. Both Bob and or Peter could die waiting. And neither have a choice to pay for faster or better care.
Oh, the main reason the waits are so long.....there really is only ONE specialist. One third of practicing doctors leave Canada to practice in the U.S. Economics and freedom.
I dare say, that if universal healthcare becomes comparable in the U.S. as in Canada, there will be a significant shortage of doctors going across the border. (maybe that would be good for Canada) Except, a lot of Canadian patients choose to go across the border themselves for treatments and choice.
Millions of Canadians don't have a family doctor. It mainly happens in rural areas.....with a shortage of doctors, most doctors will congregate to larger metropolitan areas where there are more funds and equipment and services. What you find is millions of people sitting in emergency rooms. Unless they just give up or ignore their health issues to avoid lengthy waits in emergency rooms.
Yes, the nobleness of universal healthcare has it's flaws for sure. And it's expensive.

 

[Greenbeard]

It is a worthwhile discussion at the state level. There are two states that have some form of healthcare (Mass and Tenn). I believe Oregon has something too.

But no federal health care system....period.

All of those state-level reform efforts (and others, e.g. Maine) are joint federal-state projects to an extent. The same is true of the coverage pieces in the ACA.

Page 57 of the health bill give the government the right to get at your bank accounts to pay for your medical expences ...

No, it doesn't. That's chain email garbage about a defunct health bill from the last Congress (and it wasn't even true about that bill).

Here's the text of the actual Affordable Care Act. Page 57 is about a study of the large group insurance markets. Not that there are official page numbers anyway.

Canada has universal healthcare and it does have many problems. And it looks like President Obama has made the plans to set in motion a similar system.

Only by a rather generous interpretation of the word "similar."

 

[Disenchanted61]

Why must it be one or the other? Let the "billionaire" buy his best healthcare money can bu, and those that prefer the public option can apply for the option. If you Billionaires have reservations about paying your
share of the tax burden, then you are not "to big to fail!" We pay more than our fair share in State, Local
and Federal taxes, and have a say in how it should be spent.

 

[manifold]

Why must it be one or the other? Let the "billionaire" buy his best healthcare money can bu, and those that prefer the public option can apply for the option.

I agree, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

The whole point of the OP was to demonstrate the absurdity of a particular leftist talking point.

 

[Swagger]

Perhaps we should have some kind of 'government funding' for healthcare.

How about we all pay into a fund - everyone, no matter how much or how little you earn - everyone pays the exact same rate. That fund is ringfenced for specific, catastrophic illness treatment only. We could define within that tax exactly what will be paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. You get cancer, you won't lose your home because the care will be funded. No matter who you are - that money is available. Whether you are Warren Buffet or clean the floors at Mickey Ds. Should you be a multimillionaire and you choose to pay for a more expensive treatment, that's fine, your money, your choice but the fund would cover the basic care required.

Other than that, you either have insurance, or you take the risk. On your own head be the consequences. And, if you lose your home because you chose not to have insurance, so be it.

Just an idea.

I take you're referring to the NHS, right? At its inception it was a genuine force for good. But now it's mired in grossly unnecessary layers of management that fuels infighting and inter-departmental conflict, which seriously disrupts treatment and service delivery to your average taxpaying patient.

 

[rdean]

Just remember Republicans, if they die "too quick", you don't get to watch them suffer.

 

[auditor0007]

Perhaps we should have some kind of 'government funding' for healthcare.

How about we all pay into a fund - everyone, no matter how much or how little you earn - everyone pays the exact same rate. That fund is ringfenced for specific, catastrophic illness treatment only. We could define within that tax exactly what will be paid for. Nothing more, nothing less. You get cancer, you won't lose your home because the care will be funded. No matter who you are - that money is available. Whether you are Warren Buffet or clean the floors at Mickey Ds. Should you be a multimillionaire and you choose to pay for a more expensive treatment, that's fine, your money, your choice but the fund would cover the basic care required.

Other than that, you either have insurance, or you take the risk. On your own head be the consequences. And, if you lose your home because you chose not to have insurance, so be it.

Just an idea.

This is somewhat like the British system, although not everyone pays the same. Everyone and anyone can receive treatment through the NHS. Yes, there are some problems and there can be wait times for non-emergency medical issues, but everyone gets the medical care they need. For those who can afford it and choose to do so, private insurance is also available. Those who purchase private insurance are seen much sooner and do not have to wait to see a specialist. They get better treatment overall. That is not to say they fair any better, they just get more prompt treatment, but that is fair since they are paying extra.

The British system takes a lot of knocks, but most people outside of Great Britain don't understand that the Brits have the option of paying for private insurance if they so choose.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why must it be one or the other? Let the "billionaire" buy his best healthcare money can bu, and those that prefer the public option can apply for the option.

I agree, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

The whole point of the OP was to demonstrate the absurdity of a particular leftist talking point.

The only thing thats absurd is that you think your example in the OP is something that dems are arguing for.

 

[manifold]

Why must it be one or the other? Let the "billionaire" buy his best healthcare money can bu, and those that prefer the public option can apply for the option.

I agree, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

The whole point of the OP was to demonstrate the absurdity of a particular leftist talking point.

The only thing thats absurd is that you think your example in the OP is something that dems are arguing for.

I never said "dems".

But definitely the leftist dipshits who post here.

 

[rightwinger]

Insurance companies make decisions like that every day in deciding what procedures to cover and on whom? And yes, billionaires are welcome to get a high risk procedure if they want one

But to use this as a justification that nobody should have affordable healthcare is ridiculous. Decisions will always have to be made in healthcare

That does not mean we should stop trying to make healthcare available to all Americans