0
TomAiello

If healthcare ought to be provided for all....

By TomAiello, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

jerryzflies    0

jerryzflies
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If healthcare, food and shelter shouldn't be provided for all, who would you deny it to?



You would not "deny" it to anybody. On the other hand, you would not "provide" it to the significant part of the population that both "provides" it for themselves and "provides" it to others.



If people provide it for themselves, it IS being provided. The issue is people who ae unable to provide it for themselves. If they are unable due to age, sickness or whatever to provide for themselves and society won't provide it either, then they ARE being denied the basic necessities of life.

There's a document signed 233 years ago today that mentions the right to "Life...". There isn't any small print saying "not applicable to orphans, the elderly, or the handicapped)



Ok - so by your words that life is a "right", abortion is a violation of one's rights. Please confirm or deny.

.



When fetuses are given social security numbers and get tax breaks you may have a point.

Slaves, women, fetuses and other non-human lifeforms were obviously excluded from any natural rights. After all, Jefferson and many of the other signers kept (and fathered) slaves.
If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

mnealtx    0

mnealtx
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If healthcare, food and shelter shouldn't be provided for all, who would you deny it to?



You would not "deny" it to anybody. On the other hand, you would not "provide" it to the significant part of the population that both "provides" it for themselves and "provides" it to others.



If people provide it for themselves, it IS being provided. The issue is people who ae unable to provide it for themselves. If they are unable due to age, sickness or whatever to provide for themselves and society won't provide it either, then they ARE being denied the basic necessities of life.

There's a document signed 233 years ago today that mentions the right to "Life...". There isn't any small print saying "not applicable to orphans, the elderly, or the handicapped)



Ok - so by your words that life is a "right", abortion is a violation of one's rights. Please confirm or deny.

.



When fetuses are given social security numbers and get tax breaks you may have a point.

Slaves, women, fetuses and other non-human lifeforms were obviously excluded from any natural rights. After all, Jefferson and many of the other signers kept (and fathered) slaves.



And yet, you feel you have the RIGHT to take the labor of medical industry personnel, farmers, construction workers... sounds like slavery to me...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
Quote

Because food and shelter are attainable with a little bit of work



Just like health insurance, ability to pay for health care, etc. It's when paying for health insurance means devoting half of the skydive budget that people figure, "someone else will pay for it."

[Reply]health there are no guaranties for anyone.



Yep. And most people know this. That's what insurance if for.

[Reply]I can think of a lot of people who take care of there health but still get sick, still get cancer.



Indeed. People who plan for the future would also plan get insured.

[Reply] Disease doesn't care if you work hard, it doesn't care if you have money or not.



But it does often care what you do to yourself. We find more coronary artery disease in a person who is obese than one who is not. Diabetes (adult onset) is a major lifestyle related health issue. Look at lung cancer, liver disease, heart disease. The biggest causes of premature death are mostly preventable.

And trust me on this - the nanny state will do its best to make sure it spends as little as possible on lifestyle-related diseases.

[Reply]Oh and we take pride in helping people who can not feed themselves when it is not a lack of work bur simply impossible to get food.



We have, over the past 40 years, ensured that we help those who can but do not work. Those who could not were generally assisted by family and charity. Since the government stepped in, little case-by-case determination was made. And the safety net became a hammock.

[Reply]We donate to help a lot of people.



Yes. We donate. The government decided donations might not go where the government wanted them to go. So they government forces donations and puts them where it wants them.

[Reply]The good news is in the US food is very cheep compared to minimum income.



Yes. So cheap that the government intervenes to drive up the price.

[Reply]I don't get the whole issue you free market guys have with a single payer option?



It's that a single payor is not negotiable. In what else would you tolerate a single payor? We don't do it for vehicles. Homes. Food. Anything. A single payor increases bureacracy.

Picture fuel being from a single payor. When you want fuel, you get it. For "free." Do you conserve fuel? It costs you no more to use 100 gallons a month than 5 gallons.

The payor decides what you get. 87 octane. You don't need anything higher. Then the gov will ration it because it's too expensive. Too many using it.

Just some sense will provide conclusions that monopolies are not in the business of customer satisfaction.

[Reply]Is it that hard to understand that every one gets sick, and me or you or any other citizens should worry about there health when there sick and not the money.



An interesting thought. That people should worry about their health instead of the money. Ironically, I worry about the money now that I am healthy, so I bought insurance. And then an extended coverage. So I've gotta come up with $7.5k max total if I get cancer up to $3 million.

Since I have $6.5k in an MSA right now I don't see it being a huge problem. Losing income during that time may be a problem, though. So I am insured at 80% of my income should I get ill. If I die, my wife won't have to worry about money for the next ten years or so.

This all means that I have less fun in life, but I reckon that I should have things in order should something unfortunate occur.

[Reply]I have no problem with my taxes being used to help pay for my fellow Americans treatments.



Imagine if I, with my resources, got sick and the taxpayers paid for me.

If I'm paying for a liver transplant for a 35 year old alcoholic, then I've got a problem with that. I've got case-by-case problems. Some I am not so troubled by. Other I am.


[Reply]I actually can't think of something i would be more for when it comes to my taxes being spent then health.