Yet another healthcare topic

[LMNO]

Yeah, that.

[hooplala]

Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument, so I don't see any point in my trying to debate this any longer.

LMNO, in future I would suggest not asking the question if you don't want actual answers you don't want to hear.

I am leaving work for the day, so I won't be able to read any more responses or respond myself... I hope none of you consider me a monster, though I suspect a large portion of you do.

[Elder Iptuous]

i still love you Hoops
you're welcome at my fortified bunker any time.
viva la resistance!

[East Coast Hustle]

Hoops, there's a difference between listing the arguments against universal health care (as the original question asked) and appearing to actually advocate one of those arguments, especially one as inane as you have chosen. Especially coming from a Canadian (fairly or not), it appears to fall into the "fuck you, I got mine" line of thought.

[East Coast Hustle]

Mind you, your playing of devil's advocate on this issue, whether heartfelt or not, does nothing to lower my opinion of you.

[hooplala]

Yeah, I debated long and hard about saying anything at all since I'm a Canuck... I can imagine what it sounds like.

I tried to separate my views from the argument I was presenting a page back or so, but maybe that just made it worse.  Let me say again, I think there are issues with universal healthcare, but I also think its the most realistic solution.  I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it. 

[Elder Iptuous]

are there any countries that have private health care where the corporations do not have undue influence in the governmental regulation?
i would be interested to see how that situation works out...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yeah, I debated long and hard about saying anything at all since I'm a Canuck... I can imagine what it sounds like.

I tried to separate my views from the argument I was presenting a page back or so, but maybe that just made it worse.  Let me say again, I think there are issues with universal healthcare, but I also think its the most realistic solution.  I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it. 

I agree 100%... except I would make one modification:

I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it, unless they choose to.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think that choosing to unnecessarily die a horrible and painful death from a treatable condition would be indicative of a compromised mental state, so I'm not sure I agree with your modification.

[Elder Iptuous]

I think that choosing to unnecessarily die a horrible and painful death from a treatable condition would be indicative of a compromised mental state, so I'm not sure I agree with your modification.

i think it's pretty clear that he meant 'unless they choose not to participate in a system that could prevent it given the opportunity.'
it is a valid modification.

[East Coast Hustle]

Oh. If it had been pretty clear, I would have gotten it, right?

I'm not sure how someone could choose to be unable to pay for treatment. Maybe Rat needs to re-word his post.

[Bruno]

Yeah.

I wasn't really surprised at the way this all went down, but the complete embrace of a compassionless stance really got to me.  I mean, even monkeys take care of their tribe.

If the dems couldn't pull it off with a supermajority, and they couldn't, then the situation is hopeless.  What's going to happen is that whatever bill finally passes will be a giveaway to health insurance companies, big pharma, or both.

What's really funny about this is that I know a conservatard who makes about $29K/year, who was ranting about how he didn't want to pay for all of this (Yeah, I know, he wouldn't pay a dime in any case, but that's not what Rush told him.).  He was diagnosed with lung cancer last month, and has no health insurance.  He has since learned that the E-room only has to stabilize you, and that no hospital will treat him, because he can't pay and has no assets of sufficient value.

I'd like to feel bad for the guy, I really would...But he was both stupid enough to expound against his own self interest - and heartless enough to condemn poor people to a needless death - so I really can't work up much sympathy for him, despite his rather gruesome upcoming death.  He has finally seen that there's nothing so horrible as drowning because you can't afford the fee for the lifeguard throwing you a life preserver.

He still listens to Rush Limbaugh, incidentally.  People are stupid beyond any hope whatsoever.

How much health care would he receive if he were in prison?

[Iason Ouabache]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Or Waco.   Places like that have a horrible history of human rights violations.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Or Waco.   Places like that have a horrible history of human rights violations.

Yep.

Another good reason to get them away from people who actually care about each other and the betterment of society.

[Elder Iptuous]

Oh. If it had been pretty clear, I would have gotten it, right?

I'm not sure how someone could choose to be unable to pay for treatment. Maybe Rat needs to re-word his post.

ah.  i thought you were being deliberately obtuse.  (god knows, i'm guilty of doing that from time to time...)
Since you read it as someone literally choosing to not have the personal means to pay for medical treatment themselves, it evidently could use clarification.  i just thought it seems readily apparent that he meant someone might choose not to insure themselves if the opportunity is available....
sorry for sounding like a bitch about it