No One Has a Right to Health Care

[beagle9]

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

. Wow Ray, so you are in favor of death panels ? Very revealing here.... Wow... Am I actually hearing right in here ?

Where did I write anything about death panels?

. It was interpreted from the words in your post... I mean how else can your cold words be calculated when you speak about people and their ability to pay for their care ? Didn't you even say that people should DIE at one point ?

What I did was ask some questions. Of course, most here would say no, we shouldn't let people die because their natural state would allow them to expire. Okay, fine, but if we are to extend the lives of these people (which is what we are actually doing) who is going to pay for it?

. All of us Ray, all of us....

 

[Arianrhod]

I doubt that because in their time everyone took care of themselves and if you had a problem family helped.

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

Mostly because we didn't have the medical advances to make people live longer, not that they couldn't get medical care.

Years ago people used to die from all sorts of things. If you got the flu, you died in some cases. Get an infection, forget about it, you're gone. Clogged arteries of the heart, they only gave you how many weeks you had to live. Diabetes, another thing they couldn't successfully treat. I even read one article years ago that stated at one time, diarrhea was the number one killer in this country.

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I doubt that because in their time everyone took care of themselves and if you had a problem family helped.

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

Mostly because we didn't have the medical advances to make people live longer, not that they couldn't get medical care.

Years ago people used to die from all sorts of things. If you got the flu, you died in some cases. Get an infection, forget about it, you're gone. Clogged arteries of the heart, they only gave you how many weeks you had to live. Diabetes, another thing they couldn't successfully treat. I even read one article years ago that stated at one time, diarrhea was the number one killer in this country.

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

 

[Arianrhod]

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

Mostly because we didn't have the medical advances to make people live longer, not that they couldn't get medical care.

Years ago people used to die from all sorts of things. If you got the flu, you died in some cases. Get an infection, forget about it, you're gone. Clogged arteries of the heart, they only gave you how many weeks you had to live. Diabetes, another thing they couldn't successfully treat. I even read one article years ago that stated at one time, diarrhea was the number one killer in this country.

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

Again we come back to the Pareto principle: 80/20.

No one knows if/when they or a dependent will need acute or long-term care. So everyone contributes to a pool. That's how insurance works.

If you're talking about single-payer healthcare, that eliminates the insurer, collects from the entire taxpayer base, and provides care for those who need it.

Study the system in any industrialized nation other than the U.S., and you'll find their taxes are a tick higher, but their outlay for healthcare is far, far less.

No one wants their baby to be born with a heart defect or spina bifida, but they're damn glad that there's a NICU and a surgical team to rectify it. No one asks to be diagnosed with MS or ALS or a host of other degenerative conditions, but they're glad no one's ready to put a pillow over their faces because of the "inconvenience."

 

[beagle9]

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

Mostly because we didn't have the medical advances to make people live longer, not that they couldn't get medical care.

Years ago people used to die from all sorts of things. If you got the flu, you died in some cases. Get an infection, forget about it, you're gone. Clogged arteries of the heart, they only gave you how many weeks you had to live. Diabetes, another thing they couldn't successfully treat. I even read one article years ago that stated at one time, diarrhea was the number one killer in this country.

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

. Ray the person whose life is being extended will be paying along with you, me, and everyone else Ray. What ? Do you think that just because a person is being treated for something, that they are a free loader in life ?

 

[dblack]

NO ONE WANTS NOTHING FOR FREE.... No one is expected to treat anyone for free.... Everyone just demands a system that works, is affordable, and offers the same basic care that any other human beings want and deserve in life. There is a way to accomplish this, but the ones who have made fortunes off of the system as it stands, well they don't want anything to change at all just because of. You sure wrote alot of words just to accuse people of just wanting something for free. Wow. In fact when anyone wants to correct the things that have been wrong with the system, then here comes all the accusers who try every trick in the book inorder to try and label people as free loaders, trash unworthy of a sane structural and decent American run healthcare system for all.

How should we decide how much health care you deserve?

How much tax payer government research has gone into figuring out how to deal with the infectious diseases that have threatened this nation over the years, and even helped the world's populations over the years ? Government has been a key player in the eradication of infectious diseases that have threatened this nation and it's citizenry for centuries now. To hear some in here talk, you would think that government has never played a vital role in the protection of this nation, and had not done it through very important taxpayer funded research. Wow after reading I see that I am on the same page with others here...

beagle9 - I don't know if you caught it through the din of derailment efforts, but I was responding specifically to the bolded portion above. I agree with you that all the screeching about freeloaders and people wanting something for nothing is ridiculous. And it seems clear from this last post that you think government should be involved somehow. But I am left wondering what government is supposed to do to ensure people get the healthcare they "want and deserve". How does government decide how much healthcare someone deserves?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Mostly because we didn't have the medical advances to make people live longer, not that they couldn't get medical care.

Years ago people used to die from all sorts of things. If you got the flu, you died in some cases. Get an infection, forget about it, you're gone. Clogged arteries of the heart, they only gave you how many weeks you had to live. Diabetes, another thing they couldn't successfully treat. I even read one article years ago that stated at one time, diarrhea was the number one killer in this country.

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

. Ray the person whose life is being extended will be paying along with you, me, and everyone else Ray. What ? Do you think that just because a person is being treated for something, that they are a free loader in life ?

If you really believe that, ask yourself who uses Medicaid? Then look around the internet and see how that program is putting many states in the red---taxpayers that can't pay enough to keep the program going.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Mostly because we didn't have the medical advances to make people live longer, not that they couldn't get medical care.

Years ago people used to die from all sorts of things. If you got the flu, you died in some cases. Get an infection, forget about it, you're gone. Clogged arteries of the heart, they only gave you how many weeks you had to live. Diabetes, another thing they couldn't successfully treat. I even read one article years ago that stated at one time, diarrhea was the number one killer in this country.

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

Again we come back to the Pareto principle: 80/20.

No one knows if/when they or a dependent will need acute or long-term care. So everyone contributes to a pool. That's how insurance works.

If you're talking about single-payer healthcare, that eliminates the insurer, collects from the entire taxpayer base, and provides care for those who need it.

Study the system in any industrialized nation other than the U.S., and you'll find their taxes are a tick higher, but their outlay for healthcare is far, far less.

No one wants their baby to be born with a heart defect or spina bifida, but they're damn glad that there's a NICU and a surgical team to rectify it. No one asks to be diagnosed with MS or ALS or a host of other degenerative conditions, but they're glad no one's ready to put a pillow over their faces because of the "inconvenience."

I've said this before, but nobody on your side of the fence wishes to address it.

If the people decide we want government run healthcare, the same government who does such a wonderful job with our mail, our other social programs, our education, to be in charge, then fine by me.

But what I object to is people getting all this care and not paying for it; send the bill to the rich people.

That's why I say the solution would be a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar. There would be no more Medicare or Medicare deductions, no more Medicaid, no more SCHIP's program, just national healthcare. What do you say to that?

And after we do that, then we have to decide who gets to go to the good doctors and hospitals and who gets to go to the not so good facilities. In other words, if Democrats were in charge, would they send all the lower income Democrat voters to the good doctors and all the middle-class and wealthy to the not so good doctors?

 

[beagle9]

Watching the debate, and wow these two have some extreme kiss up bull crap going on, where as they are trying to speak to certain groups in order to gain votes, but also leaving out other Americans in which are just as important to this nation as the next group is. The moderator helped by saying can't this be seen as not just an African American issue so much, but more of an American issue ? The two acted as if they would die having to speak about "white" Americans for whom they think won't help their cause or agenda in the election. I'm so glad the moderator did that... It was very revealing. I see they took a jab at healthcare...

 

[beagle9]

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

. Ray the person whose life is being extended will be paying along with you, me, and everyone else Ray. What ? Do you think that just because a person is being treated for something, that they are a free loader in life ?

If you really believe that, ask yourself who uses Medicaid? Then look around the internet and see how that program is putting many states in the red---taxpayers that can't pay enough to keep the program going.

. Hey there hasn't anyone ask me what I would pay in more to help... Why not ? I am willing to help, as long as when it's my turn to get help, then I would get the same.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

. Ray the person whose life is being extended will be paying along with you, me, and everyone else Ray. What ? Do you think that just because a person is being treated for something, that they are a free loader in life ?

If you really believe that, ask yourself who uses Medicaid? Then look around the internet and see how that program is putting many states in the red---taxpayers that can't pay enough to keep the program going.

. Hey there hasn't anyone ask me what I would pay in more to help... Why not ? I am willing to help, as long as when it's my turn to get help, then I would get the same.

Fair enough, so what do you think about my proposal for a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar currently? It could go up after that as medical costs rise. The more you buy, the more you contribute.

 

[beagle9]

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

Again we come back to the Pareto principle: 80/20.

No one knows if/when they or a dependent will need acute or long-term care. So everyone contributes to a pool. That's how insurance works.

If you're talking about single-payer healthcare, that eliminates the insurer, collects from the entire taxpayer base, and provides care for those who need it.

Study the system in any industrialized nation other than the U.S., and you'll find their taxes are a tick higher, but their outlay for healthcare is far, far less.

No one wants their baby to be born with a heart defect or spina bifida, but they're damn glad that there's a NICU and a surgical team to rectify it. No one asks to be diagnosed with MS or ALS or a host of other degenerative conditions, but they're glad no one's ready to put a pillow over their faces because of the "inconvenience."

I've said this before, but nobody on your side of the fence wishes to address it.

If the people decide we want government run healthcare, the same government who does such a wonderful job with our mail, our other social programs, our education, to be in charge, then fine by me.

But what I object to is people getting all this care and not paying for it; send the bill to the rich people.

That's why I say the solution would be a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar. There would be no more Medicare or Medicare deductions, no more Medicaid, no more SCHIP's program, just national healthcare. What do you say to that?

And after we do that, then we have to decide who gets to go to the good doctors and hospitals and who gets to go to the not so good facilities. In other words, if Democrats were in charge, would they send all the lower income Democrat voters to the good doctors and all the middle-class and wealthy to the not so good doctors?

. The People should be able to make the choices, and not the government. That is the right way for the program to work... If people get had or the government gets had, then the clinic, doctor or hospital should be shut down or forced to change hands though a forced sell out.

 

[beagle9]

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

. Ray the person whose life is being extended will be paying along with you, me, and everyone else Ray. What ? Do you think that just because a person is being treated for something, that they are a free loader in life ?

If you really believe that, ask yourself who uses Medicaid? Then look around the internet and see how that program is putting many states in the red---taxpayers that can't pay enough to keep the program going.

. Hey there hasn't anyone ask me what I would pay in more to help... Why not ? I am willing to help, as long as when it's my turn to get help, then I would get the same.

Fair enough, so what do you think about my proposal for a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar currently? It could go up after that as medical costs rise. The more you buy, the more you contribute.

. Don't think it would actually cost that much, so where did you get that number from ? The cost or tax should be miniscule if all Americans participate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

. Ray the person whose life is being extended will be paying along with you, me, and everyone else Ray. What ? Do you think that just because a person is being treated for something, that they are a free loader in life ?

If you really believe that, ask yourself who uses Medicaid? Then look around the internet and see how that program is putting many states in the red---taxpayers that can't pay enough to keep the program going.

. Hey there hasn't anyone ask me what I would pay in more to help... Why not ? I am willing to help, as long as when it's my turn to get help, then I would get the same.

Fair enough, so what do you think about my proposal for a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar currently? It could go up after that as medical costs rise. The more you buy, the more you contribute.

. Don't think it would actually cost that much, so where did you get that number from ? The cost or tax should be miniscule if all Americans participate.

It's an arbitrary number. Just pulled it out of the air.

Make up your own if you like, but the question still remains if you people that support healthcare for everybody would go for this means of funding?

 

[Claudette]

I doubt that because in their time everyone took care of themselves and if you had a problem family helped.

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

 

[beagle9]

I doubt that because in their time everyone took care of themselves and if you had a problem family helped.

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

 

[Claudette]

I doubt that because in their time everyone took care of themselves and if you had a problem family helped.

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

Let me make it very clear.

I could give a shit.

These people are not my responsibility and yet people like you want to MAKE them every ones responsibility. Its not my duty to pay for anything for anybody.

If you and those like you want to pay for these people then pay away. Believe me. They will take every damned dime from you that they can and look for more. Its just to damned bad the rest of us are forced to provide for these freeloaders.

 

[beagle9]

I doubt that because in their time everyone took care of themselves and if you had a problem family helped.

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

Let me make it very clear.

I could give a shit.

These people are not my responsibility and yet people like you want to MAKE them every ones responsibility. Its not my duty to pay for anything for anybody.

If you and those like you want to pay for these people then pay away. Believe me. They will take every damned dime from you that they can and look for more. Its just to damned bad the rest of us are forced to provide for these freeloaders.

. Is everyone free loaders in your thinking ?

 

[Claudette]

I doubt that because in their time everyone took care of themselves and if you had a problem family helped.

Maternal and infant mortality was rampant, and average life expectancy for those who made it out of childhood was 35.

Yay, let's go back to the Good Old Days!

We aren't talking about the good old days moron. We are talking about we taxpayers footing the bills for those who can't or won't take care of themselves.

We are talking about one group of people, i.e. the taxpayers, being forced to bankroll another group of people i.e. the Freeloaders.

. Ok you used the word CAN'T take care of themselves also, so if a poor child or person can't take care of themselves by no fault of their own, then what maybe they should DIE in your mind ? Everybody is not freeloaders in life, but to hear some speak here, seems to suggest that anyone who needs help of any kind, and the government has the blessing of the people to help them, then they are villans if they do?

Let me make it very clear.

I could give a shit.

These people are not my responsibility and yet people like you want to MAKE them every ones responsibility. Its not my duty to pay for anything for anybody.

If you and those like you want to pay for these people then pay away. Believe me. They will take every damned dime from you that they can and look for more. Its just to damned bad the rest of us are forced to provide for these freeloaders.

. Is everyone free loaders in your thinking ?

Anyone who uses tax dollars to pay their bills, get healthcare, buy food and pay the rent is a freeloader in my book.

They need to get off their dead asses and get two or three jobs. I've done that and never taken a dime of tax payer money. Ever. If I can do it every swinging dick and pair of boobs in America can do it.

The only people I don't put in that category are those who are truly mentally or physically handicapped and have no family.

If they have family then they are the responsibility of that family. Not the taxpayers of America.

 

[Arianrhod]

As I understand it, the greatest killer during the Civil War was disease, most notably diarrhea.

The point is, medicine has vastly improved within even the past decade. Those improvements have been the result of research (much of it on government grants) and application of amazing techniques that can save lives.

The thing is, those treatments cost money.

Now, I've seen countless posters lamenting the long lost era of the 1950s, but I've never seen anyone want to go back to the medical techniques of 1776...until today.

Well what happened when people got sick in 1776? They died, that's it.

By nature, we don't live very long lives. Medical care allows us to cheat God out of days, months and years we weren't supposed to have. If you can afford such treatment, then great. You bought yourself more time than you are naturally allowed. But what if you don't have that kind of money? Should somebody else pay for it or do you just accept your fate?

Years ago there was no such thing as medical costs. Medical care was pretty cheap as was insurance. So what happened between then and now?

Even on Obama Care, the price of a half-way decent plan is about the cost of an apartment, a mortgage payment, a car payment on the most expensive SUV you can buy for a single person. How are we able to afford it for ourselves yet alone for others?

I have to disagree. We're not animals, doomed to die of opportunistic infections "by nature." We're intelligent beings and problem-solvers, and medical science is only one area in which we have solved problems and allowed our species to live longer, healthier lives.

I'm not disputing that. What I am asking is if it's fair to make somebody else pay for your extended life?

Again we come back to the Pareto principle: 80/20.

No one knows if/when they or a dependent will need acute or long-term care. So everyone contributes to a pool. That's how insurance works.

If you're talking about single-payer healthcare, that eliminates the insurer, collects from the entire taxpayer base, and provides care for those who need it.

Study the system in any industrialized nation other than the U.S., and you'll find their taxes are a tick higher, but their outlay for healthcare is far, far less.

No one wants their baby to be born with a heart defect or spina bifida, but they're damn glad that there's a NICU and a surgical team to rectify it. No one asks to be diagnosed with MS or ALS or a host of other degenerative conditions, but they're glad no one's ready to put a pillow over their faces because of the "inconvenience."

I've said this before, but nobody on your side of the fence wishes to address it.

If the people decide we want government run healthcare, the same government who does such a wonderful job with our mail, our other social programs, our education, to be in charge, then fine by me.

But what I object to is people getting all this care and not paying for it; send the bill to the rich people.

That's why I say the solution would be a consumption tax of 20 cents on the dollar. There would be no more Medicare or Medicare deductions, no more Medicaid, no more SCHIP's program, just national healthcare. What do you say to that?

And after we do that, then we have to decide who gets to go to the good doctors and hospitals and who gets to go to the not so good facilities. In other words, if Democrats were in charge, would they send all the lower income Democrat voters to the good doctors and all the middle-class and wealthy to the not so good doctors?

I'm not a mathematician, but I do know that it has been made to work in other countries (to which the usual dismissal is "small, homogenous populations; wouldn't work in the U.S."). To me the simplest math is: Americans pay way more for healthcare than any other nation, so why is that and what can we do about it?

Then there's the idea of "good doctors" and "bad doctors," which assumes that somehow there are diploma mills churning out "bad doctors" or "mediocre doctors" who would be providing treatment to those at certain income levels. While I'm not saying there are not individuals in medicine who are incompetent and/or lazy, medical schools in this country have a certain rigor that produces medical professionals who are - well - professional.

As for red states, you need to look at, for example, how their legislators for the most part refused the federal funding for Medicaid expansion in order to "show Obama." IOW, screw their constituents; they chose to make a political statement to their detriment.

Red states are almost invariably the "taker states" - the ones that take more from the feds than they give back in taxes, while the blue states carry them. You have to ask yourself whose pockets those funds are going in at the state level.