I shall not talk about the stimulus…
I shall not talk about the stimulus…
I shall not talk about the stimulus…
FUCK IT!
I’ll talk about the stimulus and the health care provisions that threaten to make the British NHS a reality here in the United States. Is this what you assholes wanted when you elected the Democrats to ration your health care? After all, their health care agenda, carefully tucked away in the stimulus their Great Leader claims is needed in this so-called “emergency,” will do exactly that. It will create a new federal council – yep, you got it! More federal bureaucracy – to decide what is cost-effective for doctors to use and what isn’t. According to the AP, this panel “will coordinate what’s called comparative-effectiveness research — when
doctors and statisticians sift medical records to determine which
treatments work best for a particular disease.”
The government already spends hundreds of millions of dollars on
such research. Democrats will greatly boost that spending, but they
also establish a 15-member council whose members will annually report
on the state of comparative effectiveness research and make
recommendations.Republican lawmakers claim the council will
become a “government rationing board” that will make life-and-death
decisions about which treatments doctors will be able to use.
Think Republicans are just panic mongering? Think the British bullshit experiment that the Democrats hold up as the standard they want to impose is so fabulous?
Why don’t you read the story to which I linked above. Is this what you proponents of government controlled health care wanted? Is this your idea of quality?
Drs Fang and Pierik now proffer the hope of a focused future. Now that we can
characterise the key enzymes of MRSA and C difficile, we might design new
antibiotics systematically, not randomly. Science may indeed rescue us from
the NHS’s failings.
Yet the NHS, as a state monopoly, will find new ways to fail. And we will have
ourselves to blame. The insurance-based systems of continental Europe -
whose hospitals have bed occupancy rates of only 75 per cent and whose
hospitals, being separately owned, compete for patients – are better than
our own. But the British resist reforms that cost them money.
I hear it from my own parents… how instead of spending money on this, that and the other, the government should spend more money on ensuring that people have health care! It’s hard to comprehend how two people who witnessed the butchery of my tonsilectomy back in the USSR – a surgery that saw doctors tie a six-year-old child with a sheet, instead of giving her anesthesia, put a kidney dish under her chin and snip away at her tonsils, as she screamed in terror, watching bloody pieces of flesh plop from her throat into the kidney dish, choking on her own blood.
My mom had cancer a few years ago. Thankfully, she’s feeling better, but it appears both have developed the “government should take care of the sick and needy” attitude. It’s hard not to when you’re the one suffering. I understand the sentiments. I don’t accept them. Why? Because I understand the consequences. “Giving” everyone who has been fired, every convict and drug addict “free” health care may seem like a mitztvah… it may give a warm and fuzzy to the advocates… that giving to the needy, but there are unintended consequences to the warm and fuzzies.
First – the health care has to come from somewhere. Someone has to provide it, and someone has to pay for it. Unless the government is planning to enslave doctors, take away their right to set values to their own labor, and force them to work for a government-determined wage, who will provide said health care? And what kind of doctors will be enslaved? Do you honestly think a bureaucratically-determined wage with no other option will inspire anyone to achieve and work harder just out of the goodness of their heart? What kind of doctors will be left? Precisely the kind who tie a kid up with a sheet and proceed to snip away at her tonsils without anesthesia.
Second – Who pays? The government? Um… with WHOSE money? Those who preach the virtues of socialized health care seem to forget that the government gets its money from the people! From those who produce. From those who work! Why should I, as a single parent with two kids, who works two jobs and is going to school to better herself, sacrifice for those who weren’t willing or able to do what I did? Is their need somehow a claim check to my earnings? Apparently those who advocate just such a system think so! I must work and pay taxes – considerably higher taxes, because I happen to work my ass off to succeed – so that some rotting whore in subsidized housing with six snotty kids can take them to a doctor?
Sorry, guys. That may sound heartless, because the kids really are innocent in all this, but my sympathy won’t change the fact that I’m being FORCED to support them.
And lastly, this is what really boggles the mind. The government wants to create a bureaucracy – with all its personnel costs, equipment costs, etc. – to monitor the cost effectiveness of treatments. It wants to create something that will invariably cost millions of dollars (salaries for personnel, federal benefits, pensions, office space, equipment, etc.) to monitor the cost effectiveness of health care???????? It’s like giving a kiddie diddler a daycare center, ferpetessake!
But again, you advocates of government giving you free shit elected this. And when it comes crashing down on your fool heads, I’ll laugh at you.
Feb 17, 2009 @ 17:41:53
Nikki, what folks don’t realize is that they must give up an equivalent amount of freedom for every aspect of their life for which they want the government to be responsible.Personally, from a return on investment perspective, I wouldn’t mind paying for the health care of some slob living in public housing and being paid welfare, so long as that same slob submitted to being:1) spayed/neutered2) monitored for drug and alcohol abuse3) monitored for criminal activity4) if found positive for either 2 or 3, then kicked out of public housing permanently and banned from all future government entitlementsReceiving assistance from the government should involve a contract, not a one-way grubbing at the teat of the public.Mind you, this would require a lot of oversight and would be subject to plenty of fraud in the beginning, but if the slobs’ ability to swim in the gene pool was neutralized, I’m willing to pay that price. Like I said, it’s an ROI question.
Feb 17, 2009 @ 17:51:53
Scott, while I agree that receiving public assistance should involve some kind of contract, I’m unwilling to pay for the bureaucracy that will be created by funding a government agency to, at the very least, oversee 1, 2, 3, and 4. That is inevitable. Not sure this is the kind of ROI I would want.There are people who are genuinely in need of help. It has also been proven time and time again that when the government meddles in things that can be handled by charities, charitable giving goes down. For those who are genuinely in need of a hand up, charities could do a lot more for them, and with a lot less overhead, than the nanny state.
Feb 17, 2009 @ 17:51:57
Scott, while I agree that receiving public assistance should involve some kind of contract, I’m unwilling to pay for the bureaucracy that will be created by funding a government agency to, at the very least, oversee 1, 2, 3, and 4. That is inevitable. Not sure this is the kind of ROI I would want.There are people who are genuinely in need of help. It has also been proven time and time again that when the government meddles in things that can be handled by charities, charitable giving goes down. For those who are genuinely in need of a hand up, charities could do a lot more for them, and with a lot less overhead, than the nanny state.
Feb 17, 2009 @ 18:12:53
And when, not if, it comes crashing down, the damage won’t be limited to the fools, we will ALL suffer. And if all this “free” stuff was only being funded by the Scotts of the world, I’d have no problem, either.
Feb 17, 2009 @ 23:19:33
“Nikki, what folks don’t realize is that they must give up an equivalent amount of freedom for every aspect of their life for which they want the government to be responsible.”I disagree. Oh, not that you have to give up equivalent freedom (I’d say you have to give up greater freedom) but that people don’t realize it. Plenty of people realize it and think it’s worth the tradeoff. They also say things like the government will be responsive to them whereas the evil, greedy pharmaceutical companies are only in it to hurt them. They think they are already being denied care and that rationing will balance it out so someone more well off than them may have to give something up, but that it’ll filter down to them getting more than they have now. There are a million reasons people don’t care that they’re giving up their liberty or that they think rationing health care is better. I know it’s appalling, but I don’t think we can put it down to ignorance. Delusion, yes, but not ignorance.And now this Porkulus Maximus is a done deal – I can’t believe the Supreme Court couldn’t strike such a clearly unconstitutional thing down, but apparently that’s not on the table. So much for checks and balances. No WAY it’s going in the direction of that 1,2,3, 4 ROI though – quite the opposite. Bend over.Or…well Nicki, that tonsil story is the worst fucking thing I’ve ever heard. But it’s about what we can expect in the long run. I’ve tried so many times to ask people what they think will happen when doctors have no incentive to even GO through medical school – down the road, when these doctors are out of the field and there are no new ones coming, because no one is going to work that hard to make exactly the same living as everyone else gets BY DEFAULT in socialism – what’s left? I think now we are getting an idea, with that story. Holy shit.
Feb 17, 2009 @ 23:34:30
Tums anyone?
Feb 18, 2009 @ 00:50:50
Think euthanasia people. Not only will they be deciding what treatments are effective, but they will also be deciding who is worth saving.
Feb 18, 2009 @ 01:51:36
Carousel Begins in 3 Minutes. Report to Carousel. Enter the Carousel…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnLU9nyFSA
Feb 18, 2009 @ 18:46:00
I think you answer your describe the need for socialized health care within your own post. Look at the example of the child who received brutal healthcare in the USSR. In the United States, the child would have never received any treatment. Could you afford a $45,000 dollar surgery, or would you rather have a new Lexus? Which of the two provides for more freedom in the greater American experience? Some folks are lucky enough to actually have the over priced healthcare option in the United States, but you know not everyone is so lucky. Look no further than your children’s friends to find people who might need a doctor, but can not afford one. I am very much akin to a “libertarian”, but I no longer have a job that provides health insurance, and in this position I must sympathize with those who have lived without healthcare their entire life. If I accidentally injured myself, I could be forced into debt the rest of my life, by being unconsciously taken to a hospital and provided expensive services I may not necessarily want. I would much rather have had the 40 dollars I paid each month to a for-profit insurance company, that I never used, to go to the government instead, so that your children’s friends could receive proper medical care. As a Veteran, I’ve seen military-style free healthcare, and there’s some huge faults (my friend had a testicle removed only to find out it was benign), but in a open society with transparent government, we can reform our healthcare system at the whim of the majority. This current system of healthcare is the most brutal and barbaric form, at least in the USSR you could get healthcare if you wanted it, here, you will become financial enslaved. If you wish to defend “life, liberty, and justice”, all three are easily taken away with just one visit to an American hospital. But okay, maybe I can’t appeal to you on a political level, then simply ask what Jesus would do. Didn’t he walk around giving free healthcare?
Feb 18, 2009 @ 19:21:29
With all due respect, that’s crap. The child would have received health care. There are charities, medical companies, etc. who provide funds for just such emergencies. The hospital in my area is a non-profit, and it’s one of the best ones around. They work with you on a payment plan if you can’t pay immediately. The child would not have been denied health care. Period.While I sympathize with those who can’t afford health insurance, or don’t have it through their employer, why in the world should I and others be penalized for it? Is that justice? Is their need somehow a claim check to my earnings? I don’t think so.And I’m a veteran as well – a compensably disabled veteran, as a matter of fact. I’m only too familiar with the failings of the “free” health care system, and I wouldn’t FORCE it on anyone. And with all due respect, but if you think that the USSR’s health care system is somehow preferable to what we have here, even though you may wind up paying for it, you really need to actually EXPERIENCE it. It’s a system that has no sympathy, no respect for life, nothing! It takes ability and perverts it into slavery. If that’s what you want, I invite you to move to Cuba to find out how fabulous socialized health care really is… or Britain, where you will have to wait months for the simplest procedures. It’s twisted and sick.And please don’t appeal to me on a religious level. I’m not a Christian, nor do I believe in government enslavement of those who work for the sake of those who don’t or even can’t. If you think Jesus would have believed in slavery, I would invite you to think again.Nicki
Feb 18, 2009 @ 22:18:49
Fidelity,You should really refrain from using biblical texts to conclude a point. An erroneous point I might add.When Jesus was healing folks, he wasn’t doling out free health care, he was proving his mastery over the material world, he was proving his divinity and compassion.If you look at 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 (King James) you’ll find this:For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.Even in the garden Adam was commanded to tend to the garden, it wasn’t a free ride, so God is no socialist.Please reference Exodus 20, commandments 8 and 10, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife nor his ox, implying that God believes in private property rights and is not communistic in nature.You will also note that farmers were required to leave a certain amount of fruit/harvest out in the open, that those of lesser fortune could feed themselves. Of course they had to pick the fruit, they had to gather the wheat, it was NOT given to them. You can find that passage here:Leviticus 19:10And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.If you have to work for food, you have to work for everything else, health care isn’t really free even when its universal, SOMEONE still pays for it. This is the massive disconnect with you liberals, reconciling ideology with reality.Finally, if you want to get into a theological pissing contest, pay heed here:Deut 4:2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.That’s the nice one. In Revelation 22:18-19 it says this:For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Have a nice day.
Feb 18, 2009 @ 23:28:09
Children have been denied health care in the past, leading to unnecessary deaths, Google it. It’s actually pretty common with minority groups.We disagree upon which form of healthcare causes “slavery”, or to rephrase, which system of healthcare causes the greatest negative effect to personal liberty. For my argument to be valid, you must first accept the common argument that debt leads to a form of indentured servitude, and for purposes of this argument (and because you can be arrested for avoiding debt) debt is slavery. If you do not have health insurance, and you have a life threatening disease, you are forced to either die or enter into a system of slavery, of which you can only be emancipated with a large sum of money. So there is certainly a fault to this current system, this is one, I could enumerate several more. To weigh and compare this flawed system to other flawed systems is a waste of time, and instead we ought to look for alternative systems, or to fix the current one. I have a different proposal, although it has not been canvassed by a great majority of intellectuals or policy makers, it makes reasonable sense.Instead of paying a for-profit health insurance company, it should be possible to pay a non-profit health insurance company: this would remove the need for providing profit to the shareholders, and thus lower the price of the exact same healthcare you are receiving right now. Unfortunately, the quasi-free market is not providing for such a thing, so a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) becomes necessary. The GSE would undercut the price of the competition, but it still would be possible to provide private high-quality insurance if one wishes to pay more for it. Government organizations are typically more expensive than private ones, but the health insurance companies are making billion each year, so if the GSE costs $500 million more dollars to operate because of bureaucracy, it’s still $500 million dollars everyone has saved. Like in the free-market, health insurance through the GSE would not be mandatory, but you would at least have the option. To me, it’s never mattered where my $40 dollars a month goes to, as long as it pays for me if I need to go to the hospital. If it could go to an organization that provides healthcare for everyone, as long as everyone capable enough to put money into it does, then I have no problem. Moreover, I’m willing to bet that everyone would be paying a lot less, and paying less is superior personal freedom.Since you’re paying health insurance, you are enslaved to this system, and any health system, let us just find a better one.P.S. You asked, “should I and others be penalized for it? Is that justice?” Since Justice is synonymous with or at least shares the same idea of, fairness, then I would say equally sharing a burden necessary to survival of a species or person, is Justice, and a requirement of philosophical morality.
Feb 19, 2009 @ 00:29:06
Wrong. Debt is a choice. You choose to accept a service – a service that is given at someone’s time, resources and effort – and it is just that you pay for it. Health care is not a right, because it has to be provided BY someone TO someone. When you FORCE someone to expend their efforts, after they have gone to school and worked hard to succeed, you are enslaving them. Nice try. But accepting a service for which someone should rightfully be compensated is a choice, NOT slavery.
There’s a reason why the free market doesn’t provide such a thing. Because it doesn’t make PROFIT! Why would someone work their butt off for an enterprise to get nothing in return? So because no one wants to be enslaved to a job that gives them nothing in return, you want the government to steal their money by force and use it in precisely a way that would not otherwise be profitable, and which would not otherwise succeed. Oh, and by the way… GSEs… yeah. Fanny and Freddie are GSEs too. They’re a great success!/sarcasm
So because you don’t give a shit where your earnings go, the rest of us must be compelled via government force to comply with your notgiveashitedness? Not. On. Your. Life.
Why don’t you look up the actual meaning of slavery, and get back to us, mmmmkay?
Wrong. The rest of us sharing a burden for which we get nothing in return is not justice. Nor is it fairness. It’s slavery. It’s forced labor for the sake of others. Your pity doesn’t entitle you to use government force against me.Have a nice day.
Feb 19, 2009 @ 00:35:33
But but…they’re people too.they need our help.
Feb 19, 2009 @ 00:43:37
Very nice start there; and representative. Though those are all laws within a theocracy that doesn’t exist now – naturally we don’t have a theocracy at all. In the New Testament there was a brief period of communalism within the church, and it wasn’t long before the church at large was flat broke either. The assumption is that people will work and each “sit under his own fruit tree.” Naturally voluntary charitable giving is something Christians are called to do – but nowhere – NOWHERE – do you find Jesus advocating stealing from others to do the work of God or of charity. That’s antithetical to the entire bible. We are absolutely not told to force others to live by Christian standards.The bit about Jesus distributing free health care was too ridiculous to respond to; but I’m glad you did it, and nicely, too. The bible is full of free enterprise, free markets, workmen being worthy of their hire, men being worthy of what they have produced (except the tithe, which was a tax in a theocratic system which we do not live under today.) It’s not surprising that Jews have historically been some of the best handlers of finance (so good that they sometimes prospered while others floundered, which helped Adolph Hitler rise of course) – they had the guidance of the bible to help them. Funny how modern Christians have mixed Marxist theology in and gotten the opposite message from the scripture that’s actually in there, isn’t it?
Feb 19, 2009 @ 00:51:00
Thank you for your insight. I’m as religious as Thomas Jefferson, I meant what was said, “What would Jesus do.” I was only attempting to offer a religious perspective on the argument for a socialized healthcare. Incase you missed the point, Jesus, being of high morals and humility (or as you said divinity and compassion), I would presume therefore, he would favor socialized health care. I can tell you respectfully disagree. I’m not a liberal, nor do I spend my time looking for pissing matches.
Feb 19, 2009 @ 00:54:06
I didn’t bother responding to the Jesus bit, because… well… I’m not Christian. But if fidelity would point out where Jesus distributed OTHER PEOPLE’S efforts or earnings to heal the poor, I’ll give the guy a cookie. Jesus healed VOLUNTARILY because he could. He didn’t force others to heal or to pay for the healing. DUH!
Feb 19, 2009 @ 01:03:16
Oh I understand; I’m glad someone answered it though, since it was brought up. The question “WWJD” is, IMO, not a good one. The fact is, we really don’t know. We know what he told US to do, and that’s what matters. Naturally given the counsel of the entire bible there is absolutely nothing in there that would lead one to conclude that giving is to be anything but voluntary by Christians, and we aren’t to force others to live by Christian morals. The whole concept and action of socialized healthcare is pretty much antithetical to the counsel of the bible, period. What WOULD be biblical would be doctors voluntarily treating the deserving poor in their free time – my doctor is a Christian and he doesn’t accept insurance; it’s all cash. What he DOES do, however, is cut you a break when you are strapped, halve your bill, put it in the mail, treat you even if you haven’t paid it, and runs a couple of free clinics on his off days for poor people – asthmatics and drunks. THAT is Christian service and with socialized health care such people will not even have this OPTION anymore. We are all becoming slaves and most people not only don’t care; they DEMAND it. We need to get to the source of the delusion, as the people never give up their liberty except under some great delusion.”If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.” — Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. (AXE emphasis)
Feb 19, 2009 @ 02:00:12
I think we should probably agree on a definition of Slavery, as the context in which we share it seems to be illusive. I think for the context of our conversation, “A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will.“I’d like to clarify why I believe health care is not a choice. It is life or death decision, in the most literal form. If I point a gun at you and tell you to do something, you have free will and can respectfully decline, however, I could respectfully blow your head off. In a life or death situation, you are being forced to make the decision to stay alive. As said by John Locke, we have the right to life. So why could it not be said that we have the right to preserve it (like we would with any right) with healthcare?With that said, if I get terminally ill, and have no health insurance, my options are a hospital bill I may not be able to afford, or death. Again, as human being struggling to stay alive, I am therefore required to take the hospital bill, it is not a choice but a requirement. I don’t know if you read my previous post, but I don’t believe my version of health care should be forced upon anyone. I’ve been advocating a system that provides more general liberty, in what ever way that can be found. In the version of healthcare I propose, doctors, nurses and everyone in the healthcare system would be compensated in the same manner as they currently are. There’s a couple GSE’s that have been more successful, like the U.S. Postal Service, and AMTRAK, just to name two that haven’t destroyed our economy. Government in this country hasn’t had a good track record in about 150 years, but like I said in my original post, “in a open society with transparent government, we can reform our healthcare system…” Having good government is a condition of having good healthcare, both in privatized healthcare and socialized. You stated I don’t care where my money goes, actually I wrote, “as long as it pays for me if I need to go to the hospital.” I don’t care if out of each paycheck it says CIGNA or “The Feds” as long as I can go to a quality hospital and get the services I need. My idea has nothing to do with Socialism, or enslavement, but the pursuit of a more effective and less expensive health care system. I do see it as a moral and ethical priority for that system to be non-exclusive.
Feb 19, 2009 @ 02:05:20
“Peace … has been our principle, peace is our interest, and peace has saved to the world this only plant of free and rational government now existing in it. If it can still be preserved, we shall soon see the final extinction of our national debt, and liberation of our revenues for the defense and improvement of our country…..The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, or within his own country, pays not a farthing of tax to the general government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing. Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811
Feb 19, 2009 @ 02:50:29
I couldn’t tell you weren’t a liberal, socializing medicine seems awfully suspicious to me of liberalism.re: WWJD, you choose to interpret this popular saying by asking “what would Jesus do”, when you could just as easily ask “What wouldn’t Jesus do”. Surely, if heaven was so important why did Jesus talk more about hell than heaven? Answer: Because if he could get you to avoid hell, by default you’d go to heaven. This in point, you can study something not only by what’s said about it but also what’s not said (the negative or absence of).Why is it people always want to extrapolate? When interpolation is available? Anniee451 is correct, We don’t know what Jesus would do, simply because 1) he isn’t here and 2) he hasn’t done it. To be fair, regarding health care, we wouldn’t know what he wouldn’t do either, because he hasn’t NOT done it. We do know that he would not redistribute wealth. When I give freely of my own volition, it can be called charity, when it is taken from me without permission its called theft. You PC ass monkeys call it whatever you want; taxes, surcharge, etc.. You say ToMAto, I say Rutabaga. And if he would not redistribute wealth, why would he redistribute health care?Are we going around yet?You’d be more successful if you attempted to apply Mill’s utilitarian principles: the greatest good for the greatest number. But then you’d still have to reconcile, at what cost?The problem with idealism is its rooted in lofty goals and philosophy without adherence to anything such as gravity.Man’s natural state IS NOT altruistic. He is a selfish creature. Murderous, self serving, and diabolical at times. It takes learned behavior to override this basic tenet. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you refer to the some game theory: the prisoner’s dilemma, tft (tit for tat), etc.In all of these games, early iterations always have someone defecting. Its not until later iterations that cooperation is achieved. There is however, one basic flaw with these types of game theory exercises, it assumes that both parties are rational creatures, capable of higher reasoning beyond Maslow’s Hierarchy. What happens in tit for tat when one member is not rational? All those pretty equations fall apart and you’re back to square 0.Enjoy
Feb 19, 2009 @ 12:41:58
Here’s where you’re missing the point. We have a right to life. We don’t have a right to force anyone to protect our life. That is why we pay police. We have a right to our health, but we have no right to force anyone to provide care for our health. That is why we pay doctors. By your logic, since we need food to survive, that should be provided free too. We need food to live as well, but we don’t have the right to force someone to provide food for us. One person provides a service vital to someone’s life and health. Provides it with his mind, his years of education and his hard work. Should he forced at the point of a government gun to provide said vital service to those who won’t pay him what their life and their work is WORTH? The other person loves his life and knows that it is worth every minute of the superior care provided by the person above. He knows he’s paying for that person’s expertise. He knows he’s paying for that person’s years of study and hard work. He knows he’s paying for that person’s ability to save him – to cure him – to make him well. He knows that is worth every penny. And he makes his choice accordingly – to make payments, if necessary for a vital service to save his life. Who is the slave? The person who is forced to give up his best for nothing, or the person who makes the rational choice to pay for a service that is worth it? Post Office Successful? You’re shitting me, right? The same post office that is forced to raise rates year after year, and is considering cutting service on Saturdays, because it’s running massive deficits? THAT post office? AMTRAK??? Successful?? Amtrak’s
losses in 1997 were $763 billion on 20.2 million passengers served,
compared with a loss of $944 million on 22.5 million passengers in
fiscal year (FY) 2000 and the $1.1 billion lost in FY 2001. Amtrak has never been profitable. Please! Taxpayers are once again forced by government mandate to pay for a venture that is completely unprofitable. Your idea has everything on earth to do with socialism. If you want to create a system into which you and others voluntarily pay a certain amount, and make some kind of health care pool, go for it. But when you advocate taxpayer funding for services you feel you’re somehow owed at others’ expense, that’s exactly what you’re advocating.
Feb 19, 2009 @ 21:18:23
Regarding such voluntary systems; some people have already set up such systems – there is nothing wrong with that at all. http://medi-share.org/ – I believe that is the one my doctor accepts (he doesn’t take any other types of insurance.) My husband and I would have joined towards the beginning (when it was being set up) but they didn’t take anyone who smoked or drank, and later it was the requirement that you be an active church member. Any group is perfectly free to set up their own voluntary systems to serve any community they feel like (that one is for Christians.) Somehow I doubt that our friend is going to find many takers to support the crackhead/street people community via their own personal contributions, which is why they simply force it on us via socialism/law. Or, you might find people like the first commenter, who are willing to contribute to such care so long as restrictions are put on it: no drug abuse, no criminal activity, and either long-term birth control or vasectomy/tubal. These are perfectly reasonable requirements for someone in such situations to gain access to philanthropist’s money in order to gain time to better themselves, to be provided for in the interim while they transition, etc. With government you just declare it all a basic right, and like feeding pigeons, you just end up with a shitload more pigeons shitting on the statues.