IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Meanwhile, in the real world, Hillary Clinton's universal health care plan is out.

0 Replies

MM
wrote

Quote:

Why sould the govt (meaning you and I) throw more and more money at people that CHOOSE to do nothing to help themselves?

What about the millions who work hard or those who due circumstances are unable to afford health care or some of what the social programs afford them. Shall they be thrown to the wolves because there are those who beat the system or government inefficiency?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Social security doesn't come close to covering everybody.

Very true, as there are many individuals who work at jobs that are prohibited from paying into the Social Security program.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I am saying that you or I or anyone else should not have to pay for it.
We shouldnt have to pay for the poor choices others make.
We shouldnt have to pay for other peoples lifestyle choices.

So you pay for your healthplan, just your for your own health care.

That's okay.

But what about those who pay in private health insurances for instance? (See my previous responses/questions.)

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyo, I have a surprise for you; everything our government does is "tax payer funded." The biggest problem we have is the 2.7 billion we're spending in Iraq every week; money that should be helping Americans.

Wrong again...but...this is not a debate on taxation. My only response to your post is the 2.7B we spend on Iraq should NOT go to help Americans unwilling to "pay their fair share". That 2.7B should be refunded back to the taxpayers who are paying confiscatory tax rates becuase of the mismanagement by State and Federal politicians.

0 Replies

woiyo: "...pay their fair share..." ROFL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyo: "...pay their fair share..." ROFL

Yet, as usual, you forget to add "THE UNWILLING WHO REFUSE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE".

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo: "...pay their fair share..." ROFL

Yet, as usual, you forget to add "THE UNWILLING WHO REFUSE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE".

How do you define "fair share?" It's so subjectdive, you'll get a 100 different responses from a 100 different people.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
woiyo: "...pay their fair share..." ROFL

Yet, as usual, you forget to add "THE UNWILLING WHO REFUSE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE".

How do you define "fair share?" It's so subjectdive, you'll get a 100 different responses from a 100 different people.

Let's start with 2nd or third generation "Welfare Families" as those unwilling to pay their fair share. They do make up part of the approx 15% of those Americans without "affordable health care".

Add illegal immigrants who use services at no cost (nor penalty).

Double dippers who collect SS Disability (for example) yet hold down cash jobs.

Every and all tax felons, Corporate and individual are also considered unwilling (and are the worst of the lot).

It is one thing to SAY EVERY ONE should be covered by AFFORDABLE health care. Yet what is affordable? What is "HEALTH CARE".

In Hillary's so called plan, those without access get get a modified Medicare Plan? How is that efficient as well as affordable?

0 Replies

woiyo, How do you suppose our government can control those you claim are not paying "their fair share?" Do you believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"Welfare Families"

Could you give us an workable definition of what you believe to be "Welfare families" that is within current federal/state programs? I get the impression you are referring to old and outdated programs such as ADC/AFDC.

0 Replies

here is how i see the responses by those AGAINST universal health care (for medically necessary treatments/procedures) :
- there are some that are cheats and i don't want to pay for their insurance ;
- there are some that have unhealthy lifestyles - decided upon by ME - and i don't want to pay for their insurance .

since THE GOVERNMENT (elected by the citizens) cannot guarantee that these people will be excluded from the insurance plan , it makes me feel better if ALL those who cannot obtain insurance for a variety of reasons (poor health , inherited medical conditions , too poor to afford premium or any other reason ) ARE EXCLUDED FROM HAVING MEDICAL INSURANCE !
it'll surely teach them a lesson !

perhaps i'm just a tad harsh in my statement - but not excessively so , i believe - but isn't that what it boils down to ?.
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

here is how i see the responses by those AGAINST universal health care (for medically necessary treatments/procedures) :
- there are some that are cheats and i don't want to pay for their insurance ;
- there are some that have unhealthy lifestyles - decided upon by ME - and i don't want to pay for their insurance .

since THE GOVERNMENT (elected by the citizens) cannot guarantee that these people will be excluded from the insurance plan , it makes me feel better if ALL those who cannot obtain insurance for a variety of reasons (poor health , inherited medical conditions , too poor to afford premium or any other reason ) ARE EXCLUDED FROM HAVING MEDICAL INSURANCE !
it'll surely teach them a lesson !

perhaps i'm just a tad harsh in my statement - but not excessively so , i believe - but isn't that what it boils down to ?.
hbg

Yes, that what it boils down to - greed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

here is how i see the responses by those AGAINST universal health care (for medically necessary treatments/procedures) :
- there are some that are cheats and i don't want to pay for their insurance ;
- there are some that have unhealthy lifestyles - decided upon by ME - and i don't want to pay for their insurance .

it's not ME who decided weighing 200 lbs more than average or smoking a pack a day or drinking like a fish was unhealthy. and you're right, i don't want to pay for that. i shouldn't have to. neither should you.

i also don't want to pay for the people that use doctors as a drug dealer so they can get their narc fix.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Quote:
here is how i see the responses by those AGAINST universal health care (for medically necessary treatments/procedures) :
- there are some that are cheats and i don't want to pay for their insurance ;
- there are some that have unhealthy lifestyles - decided upon by ME - and i don't want to pay for their insurance .

it's not ME who decided weighing 200 lbs more than average or smoking a pack a day or drinking like a fish was unhealthy. and you're right, i don't want to pay for that. i shouldn't have to. neither should you.

i also don't want to pay for the people that use doctors as a drug dealer so they can get their narc fix.

You're more then willing to consign, say, a lower-middle class who can't afford quality insurance, to a life on the rocks when their father gets cancer or has a heart attack - just to keep from having to pay for someone who is unhealthy?

Why is it that positions taken by those who oppose universal/mandated coverage always ignore the good people who did everything right, and focus on those who would abuse the system?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It's not you who weighs 200 pounds, but how do you know you'll never come down with cancer, diabetes, or other health problems not based on your "lifestyle?" Do you also have "perfect" genes that guarantees against illness?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, that what it boils down to - greed.

Cycloptichorn

There you go again. Typical liberal. Who are the greedy, the people demanding somebody else's money, or the people that don't want to give it to anybody? Who was greedy, Robin Hood, the guy that was robbed, or the guy that the money was given to by Robin Hood after he robbed it from somebody else?

0 Replies

I don't know of any other country in the world spending 2.7 billion dollars every week in another country. Do you? And you're worried about provding health care for all of our citizens? You think bombs and bullets makes more sense?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, that what it boils down to - greed.

Cycloptichorn

There you go again. Typical liberal. Who are the greedy, the people demanding somebody else's money, or the people that don't want to give it to anybody? Who was greedy, Robin Hood, the guy that was robbed, or the guy that the money was given to by Robin Hood after he robbed it from somebody else?

The guy who was robbed was greedy. That's the whole point of the tale, man.

It's greedy to say, 'I'd rather keep my money, and let people who tried hard and did nothing wrong their whole lives die from a lack of money, then feel like I'm giving anyone any sort of handout or free ride.'

And that's essentially the position that you and others have taken. You don't want to discuss the guy working two jobs to feed his family, wife works too, trying to save for college for the kids, sudden car wreck happens and they are wiped out completely. You don't like to think about that guy, b/c it's easier in your mind to be greedy to the fat guy who sits on his couch smoking cigs all day. It's not a realistic position that you are advancing, though; many who are un- or under-insured aren't lazy, unhealthy sacks of crap. What about them?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
Quote:
here is how i see the responses by those AGAINST universal health care (for medically necessary treatments/procedures) :
- there are some that are cheats and i don't want to pay for their insurance ;
- there are some that have unhealthy lifestyles - decided upon by ME - and i don't want to pay for their insurance .

it's not ME who decided weighing 200 lbs more than average or smoking a pack a day or drinking like a fish was unhealthy. and you're right, i don't want to pay for that. i shouldn't have to. neither should you.

i also don't want to pay for the people that use doctors as a drug dealer so they can get their narc fix.

You're more then willing to consign, say, a lower-middle class who can't afford quality insurance, to a life on the rocks when their father gets cancer or has a heart attack - just to keep from having to pay for someone who is unhealthy?

Why is it that positions taken by those who oppose universal/mandated coverage always ignore the good people who did everything right, and focus on those who would abuse the system?

Cycloptichorn

If he developed cancer by no fault of his own... or he had a heart attack by no fault of his own... I have no problem with that. But if he develops cancer because he smokes like a chimney or has a heart attack because his cholesterol is 500, no, I do not feel it is my responsibility to fund that. Hell, maybe making people a little more accountable for their own health will benefit everyone in that they'll quit the bad habits.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know