HillaryCare- The Dark Side

[no name 1]

Can't see the image on my work computer....

Please describe.

I'm mooning you. Some hair is visible.

bwahahahaha!

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Frankly, who/whom was it that declared "Health Care" broken other than Hillary Clinton in 1993?

Pretty much anyone who understands how health care is financed in the U.S.

Would you mind quoting some sources, and those that do not have a vested interest in applying social government fixes?

Put "health care United States" in your favorite search engine. The consensus is that we have a problem.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

You sound like a pushover.

Yes maybe, But selfish I am not!

You're just unable to imagine that people might not be as fortunate as you are in having such a big close family with the idea that everyone should take care of everyone else. Some people are in different situations, and they have families who can't help them or are worse off than they are.

Why leave it to charities when the way the government does it works just fine? What is your criticism of the food assistance programs? Thus far, your "argument" doesn't seem to make any sense.

I was illustrating the point that universal health care is the same as if government furnished all our food. No choice, No innovation just beans and rice, but you didn't get it. I am not against government food programs per se.

With government control there will not be any future cures for cancer, or innovation, or any new life saving drugs. These take innovation and entrepreneurship of the free market and their will be no free market with universal heath care. But you don't get that either. So when somebody 20 years from now that is dying from cancer and does not have the drug to save their life is that not selfish also. Because you didn't take responsibility for yourself and wanted someone else to pay for your health care.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Can't see the image on my work computer....

Please describe.

I'm mooning you. Some hair is visible.

bwahahahaha!

Teddy Roosevelt was the first to champion liberal causes. Oh no, that was Abraham Lincoln, Which party were they from again?

[Alhamdulillah 0]

With government control there will not be any future cures for cancer, or innovation, or any new life saving drugs. These take innovation and entrepreneurship of the free market and their will be no free market with universal heath care. But you don't get that either. So when somebody 20 years from now that is dying from cancer and does not have the drug to save their life is that not selfish also. Because you didn't take responsibility for yourself and wanted someone else to pay for your health care.

These are myths propogated by the ins/pharm/healthcare companies that currently control our access to healthcare. It's a scare tactic and you really should do more research instead of just parroting why you hear from the opposing side of the argument.

Having a univeral healthcare system does not have to do away with private parties. It just offers everyone the same ability to get healthcare. If I'm not mistaken, there are private clinics in the UK that operate quite lucratively, even though they have the NHS, right?

[Dan J 277]

You sound like a pushover.

Yes maybe, But selfish I am not!

You're just unable to imagine that people might not be as fortunate as you are in having such a big close family with the idea that everyone should take care of everyone else. Some people are in different situations, and they have families who can't help them or are worse off than they are.

Why leave it to charities when the way the government does it works just fine? What is your criticism of the food assistance programs? Thus far, your "argument" doesn't seem to make any sense.

I was illustrating the point that universal health care is the same as if government furnished all our food. No choice, No innovation just beans and rice, but you didn't get it. I am not against government food programs per se.

With government control there will not be any future cures for cancer, or innovation, or any new life saving drugs. These take innovation and entrepreneurship of the free market and their will be no free market with universal heath care. But you don't get that either. So when somebody 20 years from now that is dying from cancer and does not have the drug to save their life is that not selfish also. Because you didn't take responsibility for yourself and wanted someone else to pay for your health care.

There is no choice in US health care, other than you choose your employer sponsored provider or you choose not to have health care. In an emergency situation, would you want the 911 operator to ask which hospitals ambulance to send you? Have you even tried to go to a clinic without any insurance and try to call around to see who might be cheapest? None of them give you accurate quotes.

Many drugs are not developed by for profit companies, but by public universities. Innovation will still continue, because not everyone is extrinsically motivated. Some people like finding cures, just because it makes them feel good when they succeed. But then, drug companies make drugs to make money, and yes, many drugs exist only for that reason, not because they actually do much good. Its the goal of drug companies to have everyone taking pills, even if they really don't need it.

Take of your rose colored glasses and see what is really happening.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I was illustrating the point that universal health care is the same as if government furnished all our food. No choice, No innovation just beans and rice, but you didn't get it. I am not against government food programs per se.

With government control there will not be any future cures for cancer, or innovation, or any new life saving drugs. These take innovation and entrepreneurship of the free market and their will be no free market with universal heath care. But you don't get that either. So when somebody 20 years from now that is dying from cancer and does not have the drug to save their life is that not selfish also. Because you didn't take responsibility for yourself and wanted someone else to pay for your health care.

Health insurance premiums do not fund research. In fact, much of medical research funding comes from government sources.

If I may ask, what is your position on public schools and state universities?

[SteveLaura 0]

If I may ask, what is your position on public schools and state universities?

Hotbeds of Communism.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

With government control there will not be any future cures for cancer, or innovation, or any new life saving drugs. These take innovation and entrepreneurship of the free market and their will be no free market with universal heath care. But you don't get that either. So when somebody 20 years from now that is dying from cancer and does not have the drug to save their life is that not selfish also. Because you didn't take responsibility for yourself and wanted someone else to pay for your health care.

These are myths propogated by the ins/pharm/healthcare companies that currently control our access to healthcare. It's a scare tactic and you really should do more research instead of just parroting why you hear from the opposing side of the argument.

Having a univeral healthcare system does not have to do away with private parties. It just offers everyone the same ability to get healthcare. If I'm not mistaken, there are private clinics in the UK that operate quite lucratively, even though they have the NHS, right?

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Yes, they have private clinics because the people would rather pay then get the quality of care that is offered for free. I thought that they are technically illegal under the system. But are allowed to exist because the quality of the NHS system is so poor that they are allowed to operate out of necessity. Also if you need life saving operations you have a greater chance of death in these countries due to the wait. If I need to get a cancer operation in America it may cost money, But I will be getting it within hours or days not months or years. It may be too late by then.

Why is it someone else responsibility to pay your way! The responsibility is yours and yours alone. Plan properly please.

[Alhamdulillah 0]

There is no more generous person to my friends and family than I. For over the past year I have fed and housed my cousin Sarah age 19, my cousin Bobby age 45, my cousins ex boyfriend Corbett age 50, my cousin Bobby's son Danny age 27 (who btw spent 2 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and still has shrapnel in his knee from a morter shell), My disabled mother Ruth age 65 on top of that I support my darling Joy in the Philippines. On top of sending many hundreds of dollars of gifts to her and her family.

I do all the shopping, pay all the bills, I have been working 60+ hours a week at work for 3 years, while still talking to my Joy 4+ hours a night on yahoo messenger. On top of that my renters are over 2 months behind on their rent and I still have not kicked them into the street, while paying both mortgages out of my own pocket.

So yes, I do need that 5 dollars. This is the job of the people that love them not the job of government. That is what strong family values are for! It is up to the individual to be responsible for themselves. If they cannot then it is the job of their family. Then it falls to charities and the churches, that is what a strong spititual base comes in. They are 1000% more efficient at it. Never, ever the government! Not their job!

And if a person does not have a family member or church who can afford to pay a $60,000+ hospital bill if he/she gets sick? What then? Is your family the only members of the community you live in? Since when do we only care about people if we're related to them?

I'm curious, do you carry all those people in your house on your health insurance or are they uninsured? If so, will you be the one footing the $60,000+ bill if one of them gets sick?

Wasn't sure if you missed my questions here, Don....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If I may ask, what is your position on public schools and state universities?

Hotbeds of Communism.

I went to a state university. I got a good education but I didn't get the awesome alumni network that the Ivies would have gotten me. On the flip side, I paid my student loans off in the first year after graduating so the low cost (subsidized by the taxpayers of NJ) was helpful

Edited January 29, 2008 by VJ Troll

[Alhamdulillah 0]

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Can you please give me the proof that this statement is true?

Yes, they have private clinics because the people would rather pay then get the quality of care that is offered for free. I thought that they are technically illegal under the system. But are allowed to exist because the quality of the NHS system is so poor that they are allowed to operate out of necessity. Also if you need life saving operations you have a greater chance of death in these countries due to the wait. If I need to get a cancer operation in America it may cost money, But I will be getting it within hours or days not months or years. It may be too late by then.

It's my understanding that "life saving" operations are not the ones that have long waits.... I understand that "elective" surgery has a higher wait because other people ahead of you are dying and need surgery first.

Why is it someone else responsibility to pay your way! The responsibility is yours and yours alone. Plan properly please.

I'm not asking anyone to "pay my way". I'm willing to contribute my money in taxes to pay for a universal system as well.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Are you saying that little medical innovation has come from European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? All those places have a form of universal health care for citizens and residents. I dare say that the U.S. isn't the only country producing new treatments, devices, and meds.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Without a profit incentive the research is slow and expensive. And the number of innovations out of the countries that have socialist health care has dwindled to a trickle since they adopted the system.

Are you saying that little medical innovation has come from European countries, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? All those places have a form of universal health care for citizens and residents. I dare say that the U.S. isn't the only country producing new treatments, devices, and meds.

The US does lead the rest of the world at it, though.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Frankly, who/whom was it that declared "Health Care" broken other than Hillary Clinton in 1993?

Pretty much anyone who understands how health care is financed in the U.S.

Would you mind quoting some sources, and those that do not have a vested interest in applying social government fixes?

How about that instrument of socialist ideaology, The Ecomomist

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystor...y_id=E1_VQPGJGR

Yeah, that communist rag...