quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboy291

quote:

When the state controls our bodies because (it reasons) that it pays the medical bills, a certain percentage will be allowed to go without treatment anyway - see the part of the thread concerning the elderly, for example.

Nothing will change with more socialized medicine, except government will behave as if it owns us even more than it does now.

The sad part of this statement is that Sanity(oh can say ironic name) actually believes this drivel he's spewing.

Goverment owns your body?

Can you say, propaganda.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
There's the fundamental disconnect right there - the typically conservative belief that a health care system in which 1 out of every 7 people do not even have healthcare is "a system that works."

The fundamental disconnect is your argument. EVERYONE has healthCARE, not everyone has INSURANCE. Not ONE emergency room in this country will throw you out because you can't pay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboy291

quote:

When the state controls our bodies because (it reasons) that it pays the medical bills, a certain percentage will be allowed to go without treatment anyway - see the part of the thread concerning the elderly, for example.

Nothing will change with more socialized medicine, except government will behave as if it owns us even more than it does now.

The sad part of this statement is that Sanity(oh can say ironic name) actually believes this drivel he's spewing.

Goverment owns your body?

Can you say, propaganda.

Can you say military?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
There's the fundamental disconnect right there - the typically conservative belief that a health care system in which 1 out of every 7 people do not even have healthcare is "a system that works."

The fundamental disconnect is your argument. EVERYONE has healthCARE, not everyone has INSURANCE. Not ONE emergency room in this country will throw you out because you can't pay.

An ER is a poor excuse for healthcare,preventive care,aftercare or prescriptions.

Your post is a poor excuse for an argument.

Dealing with the tough problems of healthcare is one thing.

Dealing with the bullshit added to the debate only makes things tougher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Can you say 73,237,000 people killed by socialists in China, 58,627,000 killed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 3,163,000 killed by Socialists in North Korea, 2,627,000 killed by socialists in Vietnam...

If socialists don't feel that they own the bodies of what they consider to be the worthless individual, why are they always so quick and so eager to brutally destroy them for what they call the benefit of "the greater society".

I'm not crazy, everyone else is.  

,

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboy291

quote:

When the state controls our bodies because (it reasons) that it pays the medical bills, a certain percentage will be allowed to go without treatment anyway - see the part of the thread concerning the elderly, for example.

Nothing will change with more socialized medicine, except government will behave as if it owns us even more than it does now.

The sad part of this statement is that Sanity(oh can say ironic name) actually believes this drivel he's spewing.

Goverment owns your body?

Can you say, propaganda.

Can you say military?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
There's the fundamental disconnect right there - the typically conservative belief that a health care system in which 1 out of every 7 people do not even have healthcare is "a system that works."

The fundamental disconnect is your argument. EVERYONE has healthCARE, not everyone has INSURANCE. Not ONE emergency room in this country will throw you out because you can't pay.

An ER is a poor excuse for healthcare,preventive care,aftercare or prescriptions.

Your post is a poor excuse for an argument.

Dealing with the tough problems of healthcare is one thing.

Dealing with the bullshit added to the debate only makes things tougher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

if we assume that health care resources are effectively finite......on what basis do we portion them out?

The question follows from the assumption, of course. But why assume an insufficiency of health care resources, and then work forward from there? Personally, I'd rather see a line of thought that refuses to accept an insufficiency of health care resources as tolerable, and works forward from there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

if we assume that health care resources are effectively finite......on what basis do we portion them out?

The question follows from the assumption, of course. But why assume an insufficiency of health care resources, and then work forward from there? Personally, I'd rather see a line of thought that refuses to accept an insufficiency of health care resources as tolerable, and works forward from there.

That we have finite resources isn't an assumption, it's a fact.  If there were sufficient resources to take care of everyone, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  We have to work forward from where we are, not from where we'd like to be.  It would be great to have enough money, staff time and facilities that everyone could have the best care, but none of the discussions I've heard about this issue have involved putting more money into the system.  People seem to think we're spending too much now, and want more bang for their buck.

If you refuse to accept an insufficiency of resources and that we have to ration care, the first thing you have to do is figure out how we're going to come up with sufficient resources to provide the kind of care you expect for everyone.  How do you propose to do that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

people who no longer want to work their way through college as so many of us did but want a check from me and others to finance their college

Gosh yes, so much better to spend that money on a useless war. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

How long will it take the Iraqis to live down the hundreds of thousands of people your favorite president killed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub
The democrats have come up with a way to "standardize" healthcare in the stimulus bill by telling doctors the way patients should be treated and punish doctors who don't adhere to these standards.  It give me a warm cuddly feeling to know that someday some level G-10 Government worker telling my doctor that I can't have certain tests because it's not "cost effective"!

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub
If you want to see class bitterness in this country it's going to be when really outstanding doctors opt out of receiving any payments from federal programs and work only for cash as so many do in Europe..as in Germany, for example, where my daugher went to one of the best dentists in Fankfurt and paid her Euro's for treatment even though she was elegible for State healthcare as a student.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
The fundamental disconnect is your argument. EVERYONE has healthCARE, not everyone has INSURANCE. Not ONE emergency room in this country will throw you out because you can't pay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

There is a difference between analyzing and listening and balking just for sake of being stubborn and contrary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Can you say 73,237,000 people killed by socialists in China, 58,627,000 killed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 3,163,000 killed by Socialists in North Korea, 2,627,000 killed by socialists in Vietnam...

If socialists don't feel that they own the bodies of what they consider to be the worthless individual, why are they always so quick and so eager to brutally destroy them for what they call the benefit of "the greater society".

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
That's total bullshit. I'm not calling you a liar, mind you - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know what you're talking about. But either way, it's total bullshit. The federal law mandating emergency treatment only requires hospitals and physicians to treat "potentially life-threatening, limb-threatening, or organ-threatening" emergencies. In other words, they're basically only obligated to treat people if they are in immediate danger of dying, losing a limb, or losing the function of an organ - and even then, they're only obligated to treat you up to the point where they're stable, and then they can toss you out the front door.

Do you seriously maintain that this means "everyone in the United States has health care?" If so, I'd like to hear your argument explaining how that counts as having health care. Go on, check Rush Limbaugh's website; I suspect he's the one who got you into this embarrassing position, so make him get you out of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Can you say 73,237,000 people killed by socialists in China, 58,627,000 killed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 3,163,000 killed by Socialists in North Korea, 2,627,000 killed by socialists in Vietnam...

If socialists don't feel that they own the bodies of what they consider to be the worthless individual, why are they always so quick and so eager to brutally destroy them for what they call the benefit of "the greater society".

Can you say "Socialism does not equal Communism"?

quote:

That we have finite resources isn't an assumption, it's a fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Cut out the Nanci Pelosi "Marsh Mouse" provision from the Mount Porkuls bill and you'll have an additional 30 million dollars.

quote:

That we have finite resources isn't an assumption, it's a fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Can you say 73,237,000 people killed by socialists in China, 58,627,000 killed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 3,163,000 killed by Socialists in North Korea, 2,627,000 killed by socialists in Vietnam...

If socialists don't feel that they own the bodies of what they consider to be the worthless individual, why are they always so quick and so eager to brutally destroy them for what they call the benefit of "the greater society".

I'm not crazy, everyone else is.  

,

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboy291

quote:

When the state controls our bodies because (it reasons) that it pays the medical bills, a certain percentage will be allowed to go without treatment anyway - see the part of the thread concerning the elderly, for example.

Nothing will change with more socialized medicine, except government will behave as if it owns us even more than it does now.

The sad part of this statement is that Sanity(oh can say ironic name) actually believes this drivel he's spewing.

Goverment owns your body?

Can you say, propaganda.

Can you say military?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

There is a difference between analyzing and listening and balking just for sake of being stubborn and contrary.

Yes, and then there is history that shows , by the time congress acts recessions are already on the way out.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131636.html