Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Socialized Medicine

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 12>
Author
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 5:12pm
In Canada's Doctor/Facility to patient ratio I do find it interesting that there are documented cases of Canadians having to go south to the US for care since the regional facity was full. The case of the lady that was denied entry into a Canadian maternity ward since it was full and then needed to cross the border to Montana to give birth. The population to doctor/facility ratio in Canada is a lot higher than the US patient to Doctor/facility ratio. Overload any system with something free and something within that system will breakdown, and free then equates to longer waits for less function.

Simple supply vs demand, If a community has 3 doctors and 100 available beds, and a base population of 2500, and you open the door to "free" healthcare with no restictions, nothing will go wrong? It is you that must check the meds.
Back to Top
slackerr26 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - language, 8/20

Joined: 24 June 2008
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 1697
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote slackerr26 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

the HIV positive individual going into final stage AIDS, etc. Each are the result of poor personal choices.


wow. you are so wrong...
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 5:24pm
Man, my mega-post got paged...
 
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

In Canada's Doctor/Facility to patient ratio I do find it interesting that there are documented cases of Canadians having to go south to the US for care since the regional facity was full.
 
I don't doubt that for a second.  And you know what else?  I know of plenty of instances where Americans have sought healthcare abroad for things that were not covered here, or were beyond their insurance cap, or where the wait-time was too long.
 
This is less common than the other way around simply because our extensive private system doesn't have residency requirements, which most single-payer systems do.  Most Americans don't have the option to go to Canada or Europe for care.  Instead they just go untreated here at home.  Yep, that's much better.
 
Quote The case of the lady that was denied entry into a Canadian maternity ward since it was full and then needed to cross the border to Montana to give birth.
 
Yeah, that's MUCH better than what happened to me a year ago.  Having learned from the first time around, I wanted to stay an extra few days in the hospital after the delivery of my second child.  The hospital said it wouldn't be covered by the insurance.  I told them I don't care, I'll pay cash.  Turns out they needed the room for somebody else and kicked us out 23 hours after my child was born, despite some apparent medical concerns that later turned out to be quite serious.
 
Yep.  Much better. 
 
Quote Overload any system with something free and something within that system will breakdown, and free then equates to longer waits for less function.

Simple supply vs demand, If a community has 3 doctors and 100 available beds, and a base population of 2500, and you open the door to "free" healthcare with no restictions, nothing will go wrong? It is you that must check the meds.
 
That doesn't make any sense.  First off, suddenly your socialist system has "no restrictions" - which is strange since just one post earlier you were complaining about all the restrictions we would have in a socialized system.
 
And there would in fact be restrictions.  Hospitals would not function as homeless shelters. 
 
And even as to doctor visits - they aren't candy.  People (on the whole) will not go to the doctor every day just because it is "free."  There is no particular benefit to doing so, and people actually have other stuff to do.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 6:44pm

Quote
Quote Now on to MY question--- Are you willing to pay a lot more in everything, such as taxes, so everyone gets healthcare? (I'm using this to set up a new point-- I know your answer)

 

Kind of, depends, and maybe.

 

I do believe that there is a fundamental moral imperative for a society such as ours to provide certain services to all members.  I also believe that healthcare is one of these services.



What about food, water, and shelter?

Quote
 

BUT - healthcare is a "scarce resource."  As a matter of reality we cannot provide unlimited healthcare to everybody.  It just isn't feasible, regardless of moral imperatives.  And beyond the impossibility, at some point the cost becomes so great that it infringes on other moral imperatives. 


We're in agreement



Quote
 

But let me ask you the return question:  First, take as a given that we already have limited universal coverage (you will get treated at the ER, regardless of insurance or finances).  Would you be willing to stop this universal coverage, and simply decline treatment to anybody without proof of insurance or a credit card, if it would save us "a lot" of money overall?  Would you, as an EMT, be willing to kick the heart attack guy out of your ambulance when you discover his insurance has expired?


I mean this next sentence in the most respectful way: You're not in healthcare. Having said that, I will explain why I mentioned it.

You are correct, any hospital getting any funds from the federal government HAS to provide life saving interventions to ANYbody. But here's the thing many people outside of healthcare don't know--- Hospitals go WAY beyond the minimum when providing help to the disadvantaged.

Hospitals will bend over backwards to find ways to accommodate the less fortunate. I've seen it. Anyone that works in this field has seen it.


On top of that; The majority of EMS personnel, along with the rest of healthcare, tend to be conservative in views, which is why you see Liberals in Congress vying for the AMA and other groups to swing in their favor.




We're in healthcare. It's quite obvious, or it should be, that we help sick people, regardless of their ability to pay. But you also have to remember that this is capitalism, and people DO profit on other peoples sufferings. If you disagree with this, then you need to start writing your congressman for free caskets for every dead person.


So, to answer your question: No, I wouldn't kick "the heartattack man" out of my ambulance, I don't know anyone who would, and I don't know a single doctor who would refuse to help him.
















One last tidbit-

Every single major healthcare innovation in the past decade, if not longer, has come from America. Capitalism drives innovation. If there is no money to be made, there is little incentive to go through the decade of FDA trials and clinicals for drugs, procedures, or other things.


If you're fine with having 2009 period medicine for the rest of your life, so be it. But where is new innovation, drugs, and procedures supposed to come from if not from the US?




Let's spend the money on something that WILL have an actual positive impact on society--- Education. Do you realize how much good $100billion a year for 10 years can help school systems? With education, people will be able to afford their own insurance.


Edited by Linus - 25 July 2009 at 6:47pm

Back to Top
Bolt3 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
What?

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bolt3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 6:46pm
And I don't think every doctor's office will suddenly turn into walk-in clinics.

Appointments will still exist.

I'm planning to go into medicine myself after college. Someone mentioned that the salary of physicians will drastically decrease and thus decrease their motivation/care, etc. As a potential physician, I can say that is not a concern of mine, nor should it be a determining factor.

Or maybe I'm just naive.


Edited by Bolt3 - 25 July 2009 at 6:49pm
<Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 8:14pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:


Quote
I do believe that there is a fundamental moral imperative for a society such as ours to provide certain services to all members.  I also believe that healthcare is one of these services.



What about food, water, and shelter?
 
As with healthcare, depends and maybe.  There are no easy answers here, and all answers are time and place dependent.
 
With healthcare, we have some assurance that the nature of the service is abuse-proof.  Generally speaking, people will not get sick or injured on purpose.  While people may act somewhat more risky knowing there are no financial consequences, the reality is that most people's health-related decisions are health-motivated rather than financially motivated.
 
For instance, I choose not to jump out of the window not because I can't afford the hospital bill, but because I don't want to get hurt.  All the "free" healthcare in the world wouldn't change that.
 
This is less true of food/water/shelter.  Some/many people might indeed make "immoral" choices motivated by the safetynet of unlimited food.  So here and now, I do not feel that there is as strong of a moral mandate for these services as for healthcare.  That doesn't mean that there is none - I do feel we have a moral mandate to provide some degree of food/water/shelter, just not as broadly and extensively as for healthcare.  There is no moral obligation to support abusive behavior.
 
The specific applications could easily change in the future, as society and our resources change.
 


Quote  
I mean this next sentence in the most respectful way: You're not in healthcare. Having said that, I will explain why I mentioned it.
 
I suspect that I am closer to healthcare than you think - which is why I asked that question...   :)

Quote You are correct, any hospital getting any funds from the federal government HAS to provide life saving interventions to ANYbody. But here's the thing many people outside of healthcare don't know--- Hospitals go WAY beyond the minimum when providing help to the disadvantaged.
 
And this was indeed my point.  We provide a healthcare safetynet not because the law says so, but because we recognize the moral imperative.  Every healthcare provider lives the moral imperative, and the rest of us know it as well if we stop to think about it.
 
And as a result - this is what I keep saying - we already HAVE socialized medicine.  We, individually and as a society, recognize that we have a moral obligation to provide healthcare to the extent possible - and at a minimum not to withhold basic healthcare simply due to financial causes.
 
The bottom line is that we do not think of healthcare in capitalist terms, and we haven't done so in decades, if not centuries.  For generations we have known and recognized the duty to provide healthcare, and the discussionhas really been about "how" not "whether."
 
And this is why I find the whole discussion of healthcare in a purely free-market context silly and a waste of time, because that is simply the wrong paradigm.


Quote On top of that; The majority of EMS personnel, along with the rest of healthcare, tend to be conservative in views
 
Now this is just a local viewpoint.  I can absolutely GUARANTEE that this is not true on a national level, certainly not for all groups.  Internationally it becomes more of an issue of definition, perhaps, but certainly among "Western" countries you are pretty darn wrong here. 
 
But that really is an irrelevancy anyway - don't want to hijack.
 


Quote One last tidbit-

Every single major healthcare innovation in the past decade, if not longer, has come from America. Capitalism drives innovation.
 
That's a rather bold claim that I would dispute, but also not hijack-worthy.  I will certainly concede that the US is a major contributor to medical research.
 
Quote If there is no money to be made, there is little incentive to go through the decade of FDA trials and clinicals for drugs, procedures, or other things.

If you're fine with having 2009 period medicine for the rest of your life, so be it. But where is new innovation, drugs, and procedures supposed to come from if not from the US?

Well.
 
First - we aren't going to "no money."  That isn't on the table.  Right now, the pharmaceutical industry (for instance) is one of the most profitable industries on the planet.  Even if their profits were cut in half, they would still be one of the most profitable industries on the planet.  "Cost reduction" is not the same as "nobody makes any money."  Don't worry - people will continue to get rich from healthcare in the US for the foreseeable future.
 
Second - this may shock you, but there are in fact researchers in other parts of the world than here.  So if the innovation doesn't come from the US, where would if come from?  Answer:  Everywhere else.  But that really is moot - see "first."
 
Third - here is the thing about research:  You know who is NOT conducting medical research?  Nurses.  EMTs.  My pediatrician.  My internist.  Heck, most physicians.  Hospital administrators.  Insurance company executives.  Accountants.  And almost everybody else in this country involved in ACTUAL HEALTHCARE.  And most of the waste in the US healthcare system has nothing to do with R&D costs, but inefficient application of the resources we have.  Most of the changes that should happen would not affect the motivation of the medical researchers in any way.
 
Fourth - but you are right.  As discussed earlier, we here in the US are subsidizing cheap drugs in the rest of the world by underwriting R&D, and that needs to change.  This should be part of a change as well, and it could result in lower (but still large) profits for drug companies.
 
Fifth - ultimately: fear not.  There will be plenty of money left to motivate good R&D.  And to the extent that the lowered profits shifts some money away from healthcare R&D?  Well, that R&D money will find another home, where it can be put to the best use.  That is what market forces are for - the efficient allocation of capital.



"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 8:47pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:


With healthcare, we have some assurance that the nature of the service is abuse-proof.  Generally speaking, people will not get sick or injured on purpose.  While people may act somewhat more risky knowing there are no financial consequences, the reality is that most people's health-related decisions are health-motivated rather than financially motivated.

 

For instance, I choose not to jump out of the window not because I can't afford the hospital bill, but because I don't want to get hurt.  All the "free" healthcare in the world wouldn't change that.

 

This is less true of food/water/shelter.  Some/many people might indeed make "immoral" choices motivated by the safetynet of unlimited food.  So here and now, I do not feel that there is as strong of a moral mandate for these services as for healthcare.  That doesn't mean that there is none - I do feel we have a moral mandate to provide some degree of food/water/shelter, just not as broadly and extensively as for healthcare.  There is no moral obligation to support abusive behavior.

 



while i fully agree that the number of people abusing unlimited food would be higher, there are certianly people who would (and do) abuse the healthcare industry, hypocondriacs, munchauesens patients, addicts seeking pain killers, people faking illnesses so they can stay in a hospital room for a day or so, etc.

Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:01pm
I really can't phrase it better, as has been said elsewhere;

Make sure that when you file your tax returns next year, you don't get a refund but instead give it back to the government. Otherwise, stop trying to raise my taxes to pay for your beliefs.

Government run health care is NOT the end all, be all that people think it is. Take a look at ANY, and I mean ANY, government program that took tax money in an effort to "help those that need it." Name one program that has worked, without turning into a black hole of spending.

I don't have the answers to this problem, but I do know the answer doesn't lie with the government. To quote President Reagan, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

Edited by Linus - 25 July 2009 at 9:04pm

Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:10pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Otherwise, stop trying to raise my taxes to pay for your beliefs.


SOCIETY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.




Edited by agentwhale007 - 25 July 2009 at 9:12pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:12pm
And yet, the majority of the country is against the healthcare reform, but the minority is very well within reach of having it.



Weird.

Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:16pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

I really can't phrase it better, as has been said elsewhere;

"Make sure that when you file your tax returns next year, you don't get a refund but instead give it back to the government. Otherwise, stop trying to raise my taxes to pay for your beliefs.


First - I am quite confident that I am a net contributor.  My taxes paid far exceed benefits received.

Second - You and I are both already paying for each other's beliefs through taxes.  Taxes are not a check-the-box thing.

Third - I will keep repeating this:  I VERY big part of why I support proper universal healthcare is because it will SAVE US MONEY.  I pay $1,500/month in health insurance premiums, for healthcare coverage that is full of holes and limits.  It is ridiculous.  I am trying to REDUCE my healthcare expenditures.

Quote Government run health care is NOT the end all, be all that people think it is.


As I have also said repeatedly, I don't care if this is a government program or not.  I laid out my requirements for proper healthcare a page or two ago.  "Government" was not on the list.  I tend to think that is the best way, but it certainly is not the only way.

Quote Take a look at ANY, and I mean ANY, government program that took tax money in an effort to "help those that need it." Name one program that has worked, without turning into a black hole of spending.


I guess it all depends on how you define "black hole of spending," but here are some examples:

- Public education
- Military intervention
- Police
- Fire Departments
- Child welfare services
- Prosecutors
- Orphanages
- Eldercare
- Special education
- Publicly funded research
- Public libraries

Ok - tired of typing.  Basically, a whole bunch. 

Quote I don't have the answers to this problem, but I do know the answer doesn't lie with the government.


How could you possibly know that?  As I keep asking of OS:  Is our government so horrible that it cannot manage what every European government can?

Quote
To quote President Reagan, "The scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"


Now, I happen to be a fan of old Ronnie, but let's not get too literal with his bumper stickers.  For example, that phrase would be very welcome indeed under the right circumstances when uttered by any of the following people:

- Police
- Marines
- Firefighers
- Judge
- Physician

Again - somewhere along the line, (some) Americans picked up this irrationally extremist anti-government rhetoric.  Now sure how or where, since it really makes no sense at all.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:16pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

minority is very well within reach of having it.


Right.

Bootstraps, etc.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

And yet, the majority of the country is against the healthcare reform, but the minority is very well within reach of having it.



Weird.


Not weird at all, for two reasons: 

1.  This particular reform effort, as far as I can tell, is not very good.  I certainly don't support it.

2.  We have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy for a reason (the reason being so we don't end up like California).


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:34pm
Quote
First - I am quite confident that I am a net contributor. My taxes paid far exceed benefits received.

Second - You and I are both already paying for each other's beliefs through taxes. Taxes are not a check-the-box thing.


I know you're smarter then to not catch on to a philosophy.




Not to get too personal-- How do you pay $1,500 a month in insurance premiums? Someone in your family, or you, have a pre-existing condition? But honestly, if you can afford $18,000 a year in health insurance, I'm not too worried about you going broke ;)


Quote - Public education
- Military intervention
- Police
- Fire Departments
- Child welfare services
- Prosecutors
- Orphanages
- Eldercare
- Special education
- Publicly funded research
- Public libraries


We can spend a crap more on Education. Again, $100billion a year would do wonders.

Firefighters and Police get paid WAY more then many people think. I know of a city, small in size, who starts their FD out at $50,000 FIRST YEAR, and by their 3rd year, are making close to $90,000.

Firefighters and police tend to retire with 90% revenue, meaning if they made $100,000 their last year there, they get $90k a year to retire. That's HUGE. Not saying I don't support it, but people need to realize how much money those places take... and JUST for personnel. That doesn't include the $300,000 quint, or $40,000 cruiser.

But for black holes I was aiming more for Medicare, Medicaid, support for 3rd world style nursing homes. I've experienced the waste... it's pitiful.

America already spend $2trillion on healthcare. What do we have to show for it?



Quote Is our government so horrible that it cannot manage what every European government can?



Not a single European country has a population of over 300,000,000. TOTALLY different effect when it comes to providing something to everyone when you only have to do it for 10mil, even if you take GDP into effect.


It's not the governments job to provide everyone with healthcare.   I haven't seen it stated in the Constitution. Not in the Bill or Rights. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not even in the Confederate papers.



Again, I'm not against healthcare. I'm against the money being spent on the wrong thing. You honestly can not tell me putting the proposed healthcare budget into the education budget won't be better for the country as a whole.

Back to Top
Ken Majors View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Tree? What tree? OW!!!! Dangit!!!!

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ken Majors Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:39pm
I couldn't read all of the above because it made me want to vomit in my mouth and it made my head hurt.

I have just a few things I wanted to add.

OS deserves to have his healthcare paid for....if you don't believe that....feel free to walk a mile in his shoes.

I believe that anyone who is carrying around steel in their body due to activity involving engaging an enemy of our country in combat at least deserves to be taken care of medically for the rest of their lives.

I also believe that we do need some sort of healthcare reform in this country.
But I know for a fact....that none of use here are smart enough to do it.
I just hope that somewhere in this country those people exist and can get it done before too long.

Sorry for not reading your completely obnoxious and judgemental posts.
RLTW
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:45pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:


America already spend $2trillion on healthcare. What do we have to show for it?


Interesting argument...for a revamped health care system

Quote   I haven't seen it stated in the Constitution. Not in the Bill or Rights. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not even in the Confederate papers.


That's a silly argument. A lot of stuff are not in those documents that we still find to be important. Societies advance.

It doesn't say, for example, that the government needs to make sure that restaurants keep their kitchens in a sanitary condition. But we find that important enough.



Edited by agentwhale007 - 25 July 2009 at 9:46pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:49pm
Quote Interesting argument...for a revamped health care system
Yes... a system that the government has no part of.

Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:50pm
Originally posted by Ken Majors Ken Majors wrote:


OS deserves to have his healthcare paid for...


That is understood. It was part of the contract for his service. I doubt anyone is saying that this isn't the case.

The point that seems to be missed here by you is that it seems a bit hypocritical for OS, who receives health care via the government, to say that people who push for health care reform from the government are inherently wrong.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Bolt3 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
What?

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bolt3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:54pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

America already spend $2trillion on healthcare. What do we have to show for it?


Lolwut?

And you're against any type of reform?

Edit: Whale was faster than me.

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

It's not the governments job to provide everyone with healthcare.   I haven't seen it stated in the Constitution. Not in the Bill or Rights. Not in the Declaration of Independence. Not even in the Confederate papers.


So what is the point of having a federal government then?

I would argue one is to protect its citizens, against all types of foreign invaders, macroscopic and microscopic. ;)


Edited by Bolt3 - 25 July 2009 at 10:00pm
<Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 July 2009 at 9:58pm
Originally posted by Bolt3 Bolt3 wrote:

And you're against any type of reform?



Who said I was against reform?

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.