I don't think that any of us have a government-given right to live any more than we have a God-given right to live. It's sad, but some people are lucky and some ain't. We tether food and housing and almost everything else to making money/being employed. I'm not sure why health care should be any different. Ed O.
lol, fuck poor people, it's their own damn fault, why dont they just get a better job if their kids die, they deserve it
You keep saying the same thing over and over again. It doesn't make it any more applicable or "right". Very few people "deserve" to die, whether they are poor or not. It doesn't follow that everyone should be kept alive at all costs. Ed O.
"at all costs"??? Keep putting the word out, maybe someday we will finally be rid of all those dirty peasants
Wait... so you think that there should be limits to saving a poor child's life? Why? If a rich kid can be saved, why not a poor child? "lol, fuck poor people, it's their own damn fault, why dont they just get a better job"? You're being hypocritical. Ed O.
Well what are you proposing? That we should spend limitless money on healing a sick child? Weren't you the one who said that "some people are lucky and some aren't", which mean what? Some kids are lucky, some aren't? Some people are lucky some aren't? That's true, but that's not a valid excuse to let people die from preventable or curable diseases. Saying "oh they don't have a job, thus they deserve to die from a treatable illness" is basically what you're saying & yes it's similar to saying "they don't deserve to eat because they don't have a job". People who believe otherwise have this emotion called "empathy". But you may go "money money money money, who's going to pay for it, money money money". Money is an instrument created by human beings. While money is a convenient excuse to not give a fuck about people, it still doesn't change the truth that we are all human. Yes, why not?
Dude pay attention, dont let me get to you so easy Does the current plan already use the "at all costs" approach? No it doesn't, that's why I lold, you used that to try and get your point across Frantically putting words in my mouth? Weak
Borders are something created by humans, too. Why aren't we covering Mexican poor children with health care? I'd say it's because we don't value human life to that extent. And/or because we can't afford it. Ed O.
I'm not being frantic at all. You're not "getting" to me... you're just being snide and I don't think hypocrites shouldn't act like that. You're the one who is saying that poor kids are going to die without the government stepping in. I don't think that's accurate, and so I thought you were participating in a thought experiment. There are other reasons You are the one who seems to be claiming that people opposed to expanded health care value dollars over health. You are the one who implied I'd rather get rid of "peasants" than take care of them. And yet you aren't willing to pay whatever cost is necessary to save them. You put limits on the amount of coverage a poor child can receive. I want to know why. If a rich family can afford to mortgage their second and third homes and sell their yacht to stave off their child's death for a few months... why SHOULDN'T the government do that for a poor child, too? Ed O.
That's a sad story; in fact that very thing happened to my cousin Julie. She was diagnosed with State IV cancer shortly after being laid off and was given a 4% chance of having the experimental treatment work. To fund her healthcare, she ended up selling her townhouse. When that money ran out she went onto Medicaid. The family helped her out, but she paid for most of it herself. See, it's possible to have that scenario exist without the Federal Government coming in until all other options have been exhausted. If you're willing to pay whatever it takes to insure a stranger, then by logic you'd be as willing or more willing to bear the same burden for yourself or your family. On this issue you and I agree. BTW, so does the Republican Party. Allow individuals to buy their own health insurance delinked from employment with the same writeoffs. Allow for health savings accounts which act the same as a 401k. Exchanging employers with the government makes zero sense. As long as they have the money or insurance to pay for it, a person should have the right to decide which kind of health insurance and health care they should have, without a bureaucrat deciding for them. If they haven't saved for that eventuality, then they're at the mercy of others. That's great news. Liquidate all of your possessions and send the check to your favorite charity or to the Federal Government. Let me know when you've done so, then your words will mean something. My guess, however, is that there's a limit to what you're willing to personally pay. Those costs aren't all passed through insurance, so the meme that we all pay for them is a lie. For example, Emanuel Hospital typically runs a shortfall of $20MM-$24MM in charges that they have to eat. Some physicians and labs agree to not be reimbursed and use it as a writeoff, but most is picked up by Legacy Health Systems with the rest being funded through their charitable foundation. Private companies should do that very thing. I'm sure there's a need that can be filled. The government should have nothing to do with it.
Haha. OK. Have you traveled in Mexico much? Why should Mexican children be only getting that brand of "universal" health care when rich people in the United States get such better treatment? "lol, fuck poor people, it's their own damn fault, why dont they just get a better job and be born in the United States of America"? Ed O.
Didn't mean to make you feel bad about yourself, give a bum a nickel on the way to the country club, your pride will know no bounds.
Is that what I am? Interesting. Thanks for telling me. Of course, you're still avoiding the question. I'll continue to show you the respect of answering any reasonable question you ask of me. I'm a big believer in the open exchange of ideas. Yep. When you're tapped out and have no assets left, Medicaid is there. Of course, we likely have a different definition of what people can and cannot afford. Of course if I'm against being taxed more, I must be keeping all my money. It's inconceivable that I would prefer to give money and or time to charities of my choosing.
Public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Mexico#Public_health_care_delivery Is it the best healthcare in the world? Perhaps not, but at least they've got something. It is probably more the former than the later. Humans have a hard time thinking outside their personal biosphere. I don't think it's an issue of money necessarily, it's an issue of people valuing the concept of money over their fellow humans.
There is nothing wrong with asking this question & it's a good question to ask. It is something worth striving for. There are obviously legal & physical issues that would probably prevent us from "shock & awing" the world with our way cool advanced healthcare system. Still it's not a bad ideal that we might strive to help those who are sick or ill the world over.
And here in the real world, we'll remember that we can't even afford what this administration is forcing down our throats. But by all means, let's keep spending because the only obvious issues are the "legal and physical" ones.
Why does it have to be a government program? My brother (a lawyer) and sister in law (a physician) are moving to Swaziland in August to work in a health clinic and to facilitate adoptions of orphans due to AIDS. Is their work illegitimate because it's being funded privately?
So she had to sell her house? Would it have been different if she had Stage II cancer instead of Stage IV? What if someone doesn't have a house to sell? Credit cards? Not get treatment & die? Yes, we all have limits. I am living pretty low to the ground as it is already. I still need to survive, there are many who are doing much better than just "surviving". More yachts for the rich, less healthcare for the masses. I am also one of those lowly sick people with a chronic illness, so I am a bit biased in demanding everyone else's hard earned money be paid for my lazy ass to sit around and enjoy my sickness. So the hospital eats the costs... Those doctors time, lab results, medical procedures didn't cost anything? The cost wasn't passed off to the federal government, nor was it paid by people who donated to the hospital... Oh wait, it was. Somebody somewhere was paying for it. It doesn't have to show up in your insurance premiums, it could show up as a higher hospital costs or higher taxes, or maybe less money for other things like schools, police, fire, roads...etc..
Thank you for not thinking that there's something wrong with EVERY question I ask. I think it's totally consistent to want to treat all poor people equally, irrespective of borders. I don't agree with it, but I see more intellectual honesty in it than in many positions taken by the Left. Ed O.
