Originally posted by Fishermage

There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government.

The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here.

Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,

The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.


As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Fishermage

This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.

I agree with you TOTALLY.  All sorts of people give.  But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of  ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need.  Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals.  I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself."  If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family.  I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!

Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does.  I agree.  Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either.  That's all I'm saying here. 

You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.

If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.

LOL, Fisher you might have had as much as I have to drink tonight given your typos! There is no just cause to force " the people" to do anything. The problem of course is the paracites preying upon these people that must be addressed to preserve the lives they cherish. 

These paracites are our current insurance and pharmaceuticeutical industries, and yes they need regulation since the thought of human decency has far been left behind in their business dealings in this day and age. I do not think  government control is the answer but a replacement of the AMA with IADMD is on order, as well as the regulation needed to make them abide by  what should be deemed crimes against humanity. When they deliberately cause more human deaths they should be held accountable.  What I have expieranced in the medical field would  amount to worse than the holocost, there is legislation that is in order.

The solutions being offered by the doctors that uphold thier oaths to protect the people, to save lives, do not bankrupt this country, and make sure everyone is treated with the best care they can possibly receive, I think they should be considered.

The only reason they are not being considered at this time is :

1. they do not giv government control.

2. they do not cater to the pharmaceutical industry or the insurance industry.

3. the AMA does not want to combine dental and medical to provide overall better treatment because they want to maintain control without intrusion.  Their elite club is more imprtant to them than the patients.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Fishermage

There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government.

The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here.

Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,

 

The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.


As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.

The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.

A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.

Originally posted by girlgeek

First of all, I don't SEE a "flame war."  We're having a discussion here about "choosing" to give to others and help those in need or, as Fisher put it, being "forced" to pay taxes (and other HORRIBLE things) to help our fellow human beings.  Fisher brought up trusting "love" to take care of things.  Nice idea, but love, nor religion, nor politics can be completely trusted.

If people are given a "choice" of whether or not to help those in need....most would likely choose to only help their "own."  Like I said in the post right before this....some people don't EVEN help their own families.  Do we honestly think they would "choose" to contribute to help others in society???  Seriously.

And THAT is how "religion" got brought into the picture.  You'd have to go back and read the whole thread, which is a laborious and tedious task, but the topic of relgion(s) didn't just pop out of the woodwork.  It got brought in while discussing "charity," essentially.

I actually did read the thread in its entirety.  The question I was asking had more to do with the fact that, in both my opinion and experience, charity and love are not necessarily religious in nature.  Again, perhaps I misread (I have been known to do that - many times) both on the initial reading earlier and when I re-read the thread just now, but I still fail to see how it is that love and charity are distinctly Christian in nature (or so the direction the thread seemed to briefly take after the point was brought up seems to imply).  *shrug*  To each his/her own.

Oh, and the "flame war" bit was tongue in cheek - though I have seen the injection of religion into threads cause many a glorious trainwreck in the past. ;)

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Fishermage

There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government.

The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here.

Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,

 

The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.


As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.

 

The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.

A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.

Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.

Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.

Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.

Originally posted by Netzoko

Why has heathcare become regarded as a basic human right rather than a capitalistic service? How is it different than things like haircuts or oil change services? Its astonishing that people forget the basic economic concepts when it comes to healthcare. It's not a right, its an expensive service that not everyone can afford. If you can't afford a product, you don't buy it. Yet doctors and medicine don't follow that?

- Avg cost of an MRI: $2000

- Avg cost of heart bypass surgeory: $57,000

Now answer me this, why do liberals act like these services/products do not follow the basic rules of trade? Why should these industry items be considered "free?" The reason why socialzed medicine won't work is because we, as a country, cannot afford it. Not with taxes either.

The point is that medicine is a business.. a gigantic one at that. The prices of goods and services within this sector are determined with supply/demand just like everything else in the US. I fail to understand how citizens can say to themselves, "Well I sure as hell can't afford this, so the government should buy it for me!"

ICD-10 Criteria for Dissocial Personality Disorder

Specifically, the dissocial personality disorder is described by the World Health Organization by the following criteria:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.

Hope you don't meet the other 9.

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Fishermage

There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government.

The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here.

Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,

 

The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.


As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.

 

The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.

A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.

Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.

Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.

Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.

I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.

All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.

Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Fishermage

There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government.

The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here.

Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,

 

The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.


As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.

 

The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.

A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.

Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.

Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.

Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.

 

I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.

All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.

Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.

When you put government in terms of "brute force," it's no wonder you're so pants-wettingly terrified of it. Fortunately, government done right is not only "brute force."

Originally posted by slaphappy33

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Fishermage

There are many goods and services that are needs, Food, shelter, clothing -- all are needs, even more profound than medicine -- all require the services of others, all are better left to voluntary transactions rather than transactions of force. None are functions of government.

The system is the product if years of government control and mismanagament, and people wnat to drink a full glass of the half glass of poison that got us here.

Of course they shouldn't have any of that crap with the banks, either,

 

The government, often in co-op with charities, currently addresses those needs as well and watch this space regarding shelter in a market over-loaded with it.


As for the full glass... we aren't going to get universal health care. What we are getting, hopefully, is a slap to the face of the medical insurance hydra that is largely responsible for the corruption and general... well it's best described as general evil going on regarding health care. The only way to address the problem at this point is to use the force of the government, and that will always require money.

 

The government does not provide universal housing, universal food, or universal clothing.

A always I would prefer it be completely out of it, because it isn't a proper function of government, I am against all creeping fascism and brute force in good s and services. if you want to help others, go ahead. You have no right to force others.

Sure you do. If you are stronger than the others you can force them to do anything you wish or just let them be. Even easier when you can do that legally.

Hence why the constitution was written, to give legal power to the people that lack such force.

Everything is brute force Fisher. There is no "look only your bussiness", and when it does it just means that someone else will try to force something unto you.

 

I think you're oversimplifying things there a bit.

All government is brute force. Government is designed to use brute force to inhibit other brute force.

Not EVERYTHING is brute force. Just certain areas in human endeavor. That is the whole point of government, simply put. To set men free of that brute force so they can get on with the real "everything" -- whatever it is that makes them and their loved ones happy. In most cases it involves a great many things other than brute force.

 

When you put government in terms of "brute force," it's no wonder you're so pants-wettingly terrified of it. Fortunately, government done right is not only "brute force."

I'm not terrified of anything, I am merely discussing what I think constitutes the proper place of government in a free society. Government is brute force; it is how we apply the legal use of force in our lives. That's nothing to be a afraid, of, but it is something to understand. It is what it is.

Behind every law is a gun.

There is nothing government can do that is NOT brute force.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Fishermage

This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.

I agree with you TOTALLY.  All sorts of people give.  But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of  ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need.  Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals.  I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself."  If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family.  I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!

Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does.  I agree.  Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either.  That's all I'm saying here. 

You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.

If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.

Actually the case I make is very similar to the one I make for gun control.  Laws are for law abiding citizens.  You can make a million laws and the ONLY people that will obey them are those that choose to obey them...period.  You, as a human being, always HAVE a choice.  But as with all choices that you make in life, regardless of what the choices are, there are consequences to choices, regardless of WHAT you specifically choose.

Criminals that want to have guns will always find a way to have guns.  Laws making them illegal will not matter in the long run. And I suppose the same can be said of your "brute force" theory of making carrying health insurance a law. People will do what they want.  So your solution is to abolish all laws?  Is that the idea?  See there is ONE good thing about having laws. You still have a choice, but....if you choose to murder someone...the law is going to hunt your ass down and take you off the street so that you're no longer a danger to other people. No....the law won't "stop you" from making your choice.  But you choice will have some sort of consequences.

When did parents stop teaching responsibility for ones own actions?  That's what I'd like to know.  Because the blame game is all you see any more.  What happened to ACCOUNTABILITY for your own actions and choices?  I suppose you think that teaching your children through discipline is also "brute force?"  And this is why so many unruly, out of control, anti-social, sociopathic, narcissistic individuals inhabit the planet.

If you want to have "freedom" and make your own choices.....then you will have to start taking responsibility for their outcome.  That means not expecting others to pay for your choices. If you choose to have no insurance, then instead of hospitals passing on YOUR bills to ME....you should suffer the consequences of being sued to pay your OWN bill, rather than them raising MY cost of insurance, which I willingly pay.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Life doesn't work that way.

Now I can hear you saying, "THAT is what I'm SAYING!!  I don't want to have to pay for someone ELSE!"  No, that isn't what I'm saying.  There ARE things that happen to people that are NOT within the realm of their choice.  My son is a good example here.  He had just turned 18, graduated from high school, and had started a job with a local company when he was stricken with a heart condition (he actually had it, but no one knew) and he required emergency surgery to fix his heart.  He was no longer on our insurance, because he was 18 and no longer in school.  He had no insurance yet, because he hadn't been at his job long enough yet to have it.  He had not MADE any "bad choices."  He was a victim of circumstance.

Medicaid (i.e. our state taxpayers taxes, including my own) PAID for his surgery to the tune of over 50 thousand dollars.  He would never have been able to afford that, nor would we.  Now....under your argument for not being "forced" to pay taxes for Medicaid, essentially, my son would have been what....doomed to die?  For what?  He made no bad choices that warranted that. 

I can choose to get a high school diploma, or skip school and drop out.  Both choices have consequences.  I can choose to use birth control...or not.  Both choices have consequences.  I can choose to keep a firearm in my home...or not....both choices may have consequences.  Consequences to a choice can bring good things, or bad things. 

If you choose to not have insurance, that choice can bring many varied consequences....even now....while no "laws" exist requiring you to be responsible for your choice.

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Fishermage

This has nothing to do woth "Christian love" or any other specific type of human love. All sorts of people give. religion does not make one good -- the best within you does. That is what I am talking about. I don't give a damn about religion in this context.

I agree with you TOTALLY.  All sorts of people give.  But the problem with that truth is that all sorts of people are also of  ill intent, and not only do they NOT give, they go out of their way to outright steal from those in need.  Yes, this applies to the government AND individuals.  I simply do not believe that society can "take care of itself."  If people are allowed to just choose (as you put it) whether to give or not, whether to help others or not....many will choose to simply take care of their own and not help anyone that isn't in their own family.  I mean for crying out loud....some people won't even help their own families!

Religion, indeed, does not make one good, the best within you does.  I agree.  Again...the problem lies in the fact that that "best within you" (whether inspired of spiritual enlightenment, or just simple human kindness) cannot be trusted or relied on either.  That's all I'm saying here. 

You have made a very convincing case for it never t be government. Since government is force, and people cam't be trsuted, they certaonly can't be trsuetd to be able to force oether people to do their will. That spells disaster.

If neither can be relied on, no reason to start forcing people.

 

Actually the case I make is very similar to the one I make for gun control.  Laws are for law abiding citizens.  You can make a million laws and the ONLY people that will obey them are those that choose to obey them...period.  You, as a human being, always HAVE a choice.  But as with all choices that you make in life, regardless of what the choices are, there are consequences to choices, regardless of WHAT you specifically choose.

Criminals that want to have guns will always find a way to have guns.  Laws making them illegal will not matter in the long run. And I suppose the same can be said of your "brute force" theory of making carrying health insurance a law. People will do what they want.  So your solution is to abolish all laws?  Is that the idea?  See there is ONE good thing about having laws. You still have a choice, but....if you choose to murder someone...the law is going to hunt your ass down and take you off the street so that you're no longer a danger to other people. No....the law won't "stop you" from making your choice.  But you choice will have some sort of consequences.

When did parents stop teaching responsibility for ones own actions?  That's what I'd like to know.  Because the blame game is all you see any more.  What happened to ACCOUNTABILITY for your own actions and choices?  I suppose you think that teaching your children through discipline is also "brute force?"  And this is why so many unruly, out of control, anti-social, sociopathic, narcissistic individuals inhabit the planet.

If you want to have "freedom" and make your own choices.....then you will have to start taking responsibility for their outcome.  That means not expecting others to pay for your choices. If you choose to have no insurance, then instead of hospitals passing on YOUR bills to ME....you should suffer the consequences of being sued to pay your OWN bill, rather than them raising MY cost of insurance, which I willingly pay.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Life doesn't work that way.

Now I can hear you saying, "THAT is what I'm SAYING!!  I don't want to have to pay for someone ELSE!"  No, that isn't what I'm saying.  There ARE things that happen to people that are NOT within the realm of their choice.  My son is a good example here.  He had just turned 18, graduated from high school, and had started a job with a local company when he was stricken with a heart condition (he actually had it, but no one knew) and he required emergency surgery to fix his heart.  He was no longer on our insurance, because he was 18 and no longer in school.  He had no insurance yet, because he hadn't been at his job long enough yet to have it.  He had not MADE any "bad choices."  He was a victim of circumstance.

Medicaid (i.e. our state taxpayers taxes, including my own) PAID for his surgery to the tune of over 50 thousand dollars.  He would never have been able to afford that, nor would we.  Now....under your argument for not being "forced" to pay taxes for Medicaid, essentially, my son would have been what....doomed to die?  For what?  He made no bad choices that warranted that. 

I can choose to get a high school diploma, or skip school and drop out.  Both choices have consequences.  I can choose to use birth control...or not.  Both choices have consequences.  I can choose to keep a firearm in my home...or not....both choices may have consequences.  Consequences to a choice can bring good things, or bad things. 

If you choose to not have insurance, that choice can bring many varied consequences....even now....while no "laws" exist requiring you to be responsible for your choice.

 Not sure why you posted all that, but none of it is even remotely a valid argument for forcing one group of people to pay for the health care of another.

Originally posted by Netzoko

Why has heathcare become regarded as a basic human right rather than a capitalistic service? How is it different than things like haircuts or oil change services? Its astonishing that people forget the basic economic concepts when it comes to healthcare. It's not a right, its an expensive service that not everyone can afford. If you can't afford a product, you don't buy it. Yet doctors and medicine don't follow that?

- Avg cost of an MRI: $2000

- Avg cost of heart bypass surgeory: $57,000

Now answer me this, why do liberals act like these services/products do not follow the basic rules of trade? Why should these industry items be considered "free?" The reason why socialzed medicine won't work is because we, as a country, cannot afford it. Not with taxes either.

The point is that medicine is a business.. a gigantic one at that. The prices of goods and services within this sector are determined with supply/demand just like everything else in the US. I fail to understand how citizens can say to themselves, "Well I sure as hell can't afford this, so the government should buy it for me!"

Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich.

The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth 

Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich.

The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.

I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH.  It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil  Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.

Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.

But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.

---

Originally posted by Slythe

---

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth 
Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich.
The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.

---

I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH.  It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil  Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.

---

Thirded.

Good, sound and humane reasons why the country that's a world leader should provide for its own citizens health.

It's very important simply because as the people go, the country goes. Better healthy, happy citizens means more production and increased economic production overall due to fit employees.

Originally posted by Slythe

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth 

Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich.

The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.

I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH.  It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil  Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.

Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.

But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.

So because it is your HEALTH (something magical, I guess) it is therefore your right to take it from others by brute force? Sorry, I don't believe that.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Slythe

---

Originally posted by Mrbloodworth 
Mabye becouse good health is a human right, and not just a right for the rich.
The reason we cant afford it, as a nation, is because the system has been bloated, by the rich and greedy who have capitalized something that humans cannot live with out. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Please seek an education, and stop watching fox news.

---

I'm with Bloodworth on this one. The reason health care is very different than regular good and services is that it's our HEALTH.  It should not be, and should have never been, a business out to make money, it should have been something provided to us. There's a reason that the health of our nation is ranked something like 37th overall in the world. It's our crappy health care system. And meanwhile countries, that Conservatives here call the evil  Socialists like France, are ranked number 1.
Every American should be entitled to some form of basic health care. And it should have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions and your age. We should want our fellow countrymen to be healthy, but all I hear from the people who oppose it are how much it's going to cost them. That's very nice of you, and very typical of American greed. People are so freaking greedy in this country that it sickens me, but I guess that's what happens when your a part of a Capitalist society - make as much money as you can, and screw anyone else who gets in the way. It shouldn't be like this.
But as usual, I'm sure the typical Conservative response will be "Move to another country if you hate it here so much." Not going to happen. I love this country, but I just think the greed has gotten out of control.

---

 

Thirded.

 

Good, sound and humane reasons why the country that's a world leader should provide for its own citizens health.

 

 

It's very important simply because as the people go, the country goes. Better healthy, happy citizens means more production and increased economic production overall due to fit employees.

If you want to provide for the health care of others, nothing is stopping you. Nothing gives you the right to force others to do your bidding.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

So because it is your HEALTH (something magical, I guess) it is therefore your right to take it from others by brute force? Sorry, I don't believe that.

What are you talking about? Take what from whom?

Originally posted by Slythe

Originally posted by Fishermage 

So because it is your HEALTH (something magical, I guess) it is therefore your right to take it from others by brute force? Sorry, I don't believe that.

What are you talking about? Take what from whom?

Please read the thread.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Slythe

Originally posted by Fishermage 

So because it is your HEALTH (something magical, I guess) it is therefore your right to take it from others by brute force? Sorry, I don't believe that.

What are you talking about? Take what from whom?

Please read the thread.

I've read the thread. Take my health care from others by force? I'm not being an ass or anything, I truly don't understand what you mean by that.

Originally posted by Slythe

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Slythe

Originally posted by Fishermage 

So because it is your HEALTH (something magical, I guess) it is therefore your right to take it from others by brute force? Sorry, I don't believe that.

What are you talking about? Take what from whom?

Please read the thread.

I've read the thread. Take my health care from others by force? I'm not being an ass or anything, I truly don't understand what you mean by that.

What's not to understand? If you choose to relegate something to the government, then you are by the very nature of what government is, requiring some people by force to pay for the health care of others. I believe that health care should be left to a system of voluntary exchanges, not brute force.

If you believe taht everyone is entitled to health care, then dedicate your life to healing your fellow man. That doesn't give you the right to force others to.