Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich (Texas has it right)

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This is a prevailing argument. The cold, heartless Right Wingers don't think that everyone should have access to healthcare....only the ones who can afford it. Fortunately, they are the minority on this issue, so trying to convince them that they aren't heartless is futile.

That's a specious, self-serving statement. You can argue for universal health care all you want, but it remains undefined and how to pay for it is still undetermined. "Shoulds" aren't worth a damn without a workable plan that doesn't kill incentive, drive out competition and ration care.

In the beginning of this thread, I listed programs which have suffered from the poor performance and management of a government which tends to hand enormous responsibility to unqualified cronies who have never run a business in their lives. The car commission is the latest example, running the auto industry further into the ground.

Tell me how universal health care would be better managed so that health care is fairly distributed, and our tax dollars not wasted and stolen.

Answer that.

The point is though, everyone does have access to basic health care, it's just paid for in the most expensive way imaginable. The uninsured may not seek care for every twinge and ailment, but they sure as hell are not dying in the streets, no matter what some might have me believe

Define basic. How would you cut costs?

And if the access is already there, what is all the fuss about?

There's really no point in trying to convince you what you don't believe. You don't believe that everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of ability to pay. That's your position and fortunately, it isn't shared by the majority of Americans. You'll never be on board with any kind of universal health plan because it goes against your fundamental principle that it is not a right. End of argument.

You have no idea what the majority of Americans believe. You don't even understand what I believe, and that is because you aren't interested in reality, but in what SHOULD be. But, backing out is what you always do when the hard questions come at you. It's what you always do because you haven't thought beyond your feelings, and feelings don't support coherent positions.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The access is to ERs. Not 'basic' healthcare. What's the difference? Whatever the difference is between Medicare Parts A and B.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Ironically, the only people who have an explicit and expressed right to health care (often over the top care) are the emprisoned [ESTELLE v. GAMBLE, 429, U.S. 97, 1976]

[Peikko 1,575]

This is a prevailing argument. The cold, heartless Right Wingers don't think that everyone should have access to healthcare....only the ones who can afford it. Fortunately, they are the minority on this issue, so trying to convince them that they aren't heartless is futile.

That's a specious, self-serving statement. You can argue for universal health care all you want, but it remains undefined and how to pay for it is still undetermined. "Shoulds" aren't worth a damn without a workable plan that doesn't kill incentive, drive out competition and ration care.

In the beginning of this thread, I listed programs which have suffered from the poor performance and management of a government which tends to hand enormous responsibility to unqualified cronies who have never run a business in their lives. The car commission is the latest example, running the auto industry further into the ground.

Tell me how universal health care would be better managed so that health care is fairly distributed, and our tax dollars not wasted and stolen.

Answer that.

The point is though, everyone does have access to basic health care, it's just paid for in the most expensive way imaginable. The uninsured may not seek care for every twinge and ailment, but they sure as hell are not dying in the streets, no matter what some might have me believe

Define basic. How would you cut costs?

And if the access is already there, what is all the fuss about?

Explain how health care becomes a right. And under what edict?

You already know the answer, you are being deliberately obtuse. Suffice to say, the burden of 20 million uninsured on state/federal government is not a light one. The government is forced to pay for all those who can't pay while not being able to offset that against income from those who can pay and who's accident of birth (genetically not predisposed to illness) and sheer luck (not being involved in an accident requiring treatment) who cost an insurance pool very little.

It's one thing to shove this problem under the carpet through ignorance, quite another to deliberately subvert facts to give the impression that somehow US society would be worse off if we rejigged the system to include everyone. Preventative medicine is a sight cheaper than lurching from crisis to crisis. We all know that fixing a problem at an early stage is a lot, lot easier and cheaper than waiting until it's at crisis point and must be fixed now.

Of course, there will always be a need for ER medicine, but it should not be being used in the way that it is now, inefficiently and to treat preventable illness.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ironically, the only people who have an explicit and expressed right to health care (often over the top care) are the emprisoned [ESTELLE v. GAMBLE, 429, U.S. 97, 1976]

Imagine that.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ironically, your taxes are higher because you refuse to even consider an all inclusive solution. Oh, but then, you don't' pay taxes, do you?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is a prevailing argument. The cold, heartless Right Wingers don't think that everyone should have access to healthcare....only the ones who can afford it. Fortunately, they are the minority on this issue, so trying to convince them that they aren't heartless is futile.

That's a specious, self-serving statement. You can argue for universal health care all you want, but it remains undefined and how to pay for it is still undetermined. "Shoulds" aren't worth a damn without a workable plan that doesn't kill incentive, drive out competition and ration care.

In the beginning of this thread, I listed programs which have suffered from the poor performance and management of a government which tends to hand enormous responsibility to unqualified cronies who have never run a business in their lives. The car commission is the latest example, running the auto industry further into the ground.

Tell me how universal health care would be better managed so that health care is fairly distributed, and our tax dollars not wasted and stolen.

Answer that.

The point is though, everyone does have access to basic health care, it's just paid for in the most expensive way imaginable. The uninsured may not seek care for every twinge and ailment, but they sure as hell are not dying in the streets, no matter what some might have me believe

Define basic. How would you cut costs?

And if the access is already there, what is all the fuss about?

There's really no point in trying to convince you what you don't believe. You don't believe that everyone should have access to healthcare regardless of ability to pay. That's your position and fortunately, it isn't shared by the majority of Americans. You'll never be on board with any kind of universal health plan because it goes against your fundamental principle that it is not a right. End of argument.

You have no idea what the majority of Americans believe. You don't even understand what I believe, and that is because you aren't interested in reality, but in what SHOULD be. But, backing out is what you always do when the hard questions come at you. It's what you always do because you haven't thought beyond your feelings, and feelings don't support coherent positions.

Well, if you disregard the polls as incapable of ever accurately gauging what Americans are for or against, then I suppose you are right.

You don't believe that health care is right. You've said it plain as day. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Ironically, your taxes are higher because you refuse to even consider an all inclusive solution. Oh, but then, you don't' pay taxes, do you?

So prisoners have the right to health care, but ordinary citizens don't, according to BW. Great logic.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This is a prevailing argument. The cold, heartless Right Wingers don't think that everyone should have access to healthcare....only the ones who can afford it. Fortunately, they are the minority on this issue, so trying to convince them that they aren't heartless is futile.

That's a specious, self-serving statement. You can argue for universal health care all you want, but it remains undefined and how to pay for it is still undetermined. "Shoulds" aren't worth a damn without a workable plan that doesn't kill incentive, drive out competition and ration care.

In the beginning of this thread, I listed programs which have suffered from the poor performance and management of a government which tends to hand enormous responsibility to unqualified cronies who have never run a business in their lives. The car commission is the latest example, running the auto industry further into the ground.

Tell me how universal health care would be better managed so that health care is fairly distributed, and our tax dollars not wasted and stolen.

Answer that.

The point is though, everyone does have access to basic health care, it's just paid for in the most expensive way imaginable. The uninsured may not seek care for every twinge and ailment, but they sure as hell are not dying in the streets, no matter what some might have me believe

Define basic. How would you cut costs?

And if the access is already there, what is all the fuss about?

Explain how health care becomes a right. And under what edict?

You already know the answer, you are being deliberately obtuse. Suffice to say, the burden of 20 million uninsured on state/federal government is not a light one. The government is forced to pay for all those who can't pay while not being able to offset that against income from those who can pay and who's accident of birth (genetically not predisposed to illness) and sheer luck (not being involved in an accident requiring treatment) who cost an insurance pool very little.

It's one thing to shove this problem under the carpet through ignorance, quite another to deliberately subvert facts to give the impression that somehow US society would be worse off if we rejigged the system to include everyone. Preventative medicine is a sight cheaper than lurching from crisis to crisis. We all know that fixing a problem at an early stage is a lot, lot easier and cheaper than waiting until it's at crisis point and must be fixed now.

Of course, there will always be a need for ER medicine, but it should not be being used in the way that it is now, inefficiently and to treat preventable illness.

Actually, you are the one without facts. Hospitals have closed due to their inability to absorb the cost of ER treatments for the uninsured. Governments do not have to reimburse them.

Now, you have failed to address my initial point. The poor state of the Veterans medical system, Medicare and medicaid, and Social Security as a retirement support system all previously attest to the sad performance of the US government, riddled with incompetents, when it comes to serious health care issues.

What evidence is there that pouring more money into a universal system will be an improvement?

You don't believe that health care is right. You've said it plain as day. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

You haven't made a sustainable case for health care being a right except that you wish it to be so. That is you arguing for the sake of arguing. What is your support for that position?

Edited May 21, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Peikko 1,575]

It's the refusal to accept that the uninsured are already a huge financial burden on society that I find so bizarre. They already are, so why not seek a solution that would (we know because we have countless examples) not only reduce the overall costs on everyone but also afford everyone with much more effective preventative medicine? To do it because of ignorance, fair enough, but to bare face lie? Horrible.

I have addressed it. You and people like you expect government to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. When, surprise surprise, they can't, it's all, told you so. Talk about self fulfilling prophecy. You and Maggie have a lot in common

Edited May 21, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's the refusal to accept that the uninsured are already a huge financial burden on society that I find so bizarre. They already are, so why not seek a solution that would (we know because we have countless examples) not only reduce the overall costs on everyone but also afford everyone with much more effective preventative medicine? To do it because of ignorance, fair enough, but to bare face lie? Horrible.

I have addressed it. You and people like you expect a government to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

The feds have health care systems. The only one that works well is the one that services the Congress, Justices, and the muckety mucks in the Executive branch. The poor state of the Veterans medical system, Medicare and medicaid, and Social Security as a retirement support system for the common man all previously attest to the sad performance of the US government, riddled with incompetents, when it comes to serious health care issues.

What evidence is there that pouring more money into a universal system will be an improvement?

[Peikko 1,575]

This is a prevailing argument. The cold, heartless Right Wingers don't think that everyone should have access to healthcare....only the ones who can afford it. Fortunately, they are the minority on this issue, so trying to convince them that they aren't heartless is futile.

That's a specious, self-serving statement. You can argue for universal health care all you want, but it remains undefined and how to pay for it is still undetermined. "Shoulds" aren't worth a damn without a workable plan that doesn't kill incentive, drive out competition and ration care.

In the beginning of this thread, I listed programs which have suffered from the poor performance and management of a government which tends to hand enormous responsibility to unqualified cronies who have never run a business in their lives. The car commission is the latest example, running the auto industry further into the ground.

Tell me how universal health care would be better managed so that health care is fairly distributed, and our tax dollars not wasted and stolen.

Answer that.

The point is though, everyone does have access to basic health care, it's just paid for in the most expensive way imaginable. The uninsured may not seek care for every twinge and ailment, but they sure as hell are not dying in the streets, no matter what some might have me believe

Define basic. How would you cut costs?

And if the access is already there, what is all the fuss about?

Explain how health care becomes a right. And under what edict?

You already know the answer, you are being deliberately obtuse. Suffice to say, the burden of 20 million uninsured on state/federal government is not a light one. The government is forced to pay for all those who can't pay while not being able to offset that against income from those who can pay and who's accident of birth (genetically not predisposed to illness) and sheer luck (not being involved in an accident requiring treatment) who cost an insurance pool very little.

It's one thing to shove this problem under the carpet through ignorance, quite another to deliberately subvert facts to give the impression that somehow US society would be worse off if we rejigged the system to include everyone. Preventative medicine is a sight cheaper than lurching from crisis to crisis. We all know that fixing a problem at an early stage is a lot, lot easier and cheaper than waiting until it's at crisis point and must be fixed now.

Of course, there will always be a need for ER medicine, but it should not be being used in the way that it is now, inefficiently and to treat preventable illness.

Actually, you are the one without facts. Hospitals have closed due to their inability to absorb the cost of ER treatments for the uninsured. Governments do not have to reimburse them.

Now, you have failed to address my initial point. The poor state of the Veterans medical system, Medicare and medicaid, and Social Security as a retirement support system all previously attest to the sad performance of the US government, riddled with incompetents, when it comes to serious health care issues.

What evidence is there that pouring more money into a universal system will be an improvement?

You don't believe that health care is right. You've said it plain as day. You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

You haven't made a sustainable case for health care being a right except that you wish it to be so. That is you arguing for the sake of arguing. What is your support for that position?

So, they close, and what happens to the uninsured? Dying in the streets yet? No, I thought not. Is it your contention that as an ER closes, those who sought care there before magically have no further need for treatment? Are poor people really remarkably fit and healthy and magically avoid accidents?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You haven't made a sustainable case for health care being a right except that you wish it to be so. That is you arguing for the sake of arguing. What is your support for that position?

Because I have a heart.

[mawilson 2,133]

There isn't? How odd, and there was I thinking that everyone is granted access to emergency care regardless of ability to pay. I must have dreamed that...

They won't let you die in the streets, but when you get the bill, you'll wish you were dead

There's no guaranteed right to 'free' healthcare.

Edited May 21, 2009 by mawilson

[Peikko 1,575]

It's the refusal to accept that the uninsured are already a huge financial burden on society that I find so bizarre. They already are, so why not seek a solution that would (we know because we have countless examples) not only reduce the overall costs on everyone but also afford everyone with much more effective preventative medicine? To do it because of ignorance, fair enough, but to bare face lie? Horrible.

I have addressed it. You and people like you expect a government to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

The feds have health care systems. The only one that works well is the one that services the Congress, Justices, and the muckety mucks in the Executive branch. The poor state of the Veterans medical system, Medicare and medicaid, and Social Security as a retirement support system for the common man all previously attest to the sad performance of the US government, riddled with incompetents, when it comes to serious health care issues.

What evidence is there that pouring more money into a universal system will be an improvement?

You are of course suggesting that somehow there is an effective source of income for these institutions, but that, corruption, inefficiency and incompetence have resulted in paltry performance. How come the US government is so awful? Surely, if the French can provide a first class health service to all it's citizens, I mean, those lazy cowardly French, then what the hell is wrong with the US that it can't?

There isn't? How odd, and there was I thinking that everyone is granted access to emergency care regardless of ability to pay. I must have dreamed that...

They won't let you die in the streets, but when you get the bill, you'll wish you were dead

There's no guaranteed right to 'free' healthcare.

There is no such things as 'free' healthcare.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You haven't made a sustainable case for health care being a right except that you wish it to be so. That is you arguing for the sake of arguing. What is your support for that position?

Because I have a heart.