RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it"

RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 8:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX It is immoral, for many reasons You have to take the money away from someone to do it, that's stealing. Government is notoriously corrupt and inefficient, so it is wasteful. Politicians use taxpayer money to buy votes with such programs, so motivations are very often impure For the same reasons you can't provide people with everything you need as I suggested above, it is cruel to get people hooked and dependent on government handouts, especially when government may not always be there. Our current debt is unsustainable and something's got to give money isnt "moral"

Kirata -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 8:30:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Everyone should have the right to healthcare. I think that's precisely backwards. In my view, it's not a matter of anyone having a "right" to healthcare but rather a case of us having an obligation to care for our infirm. K.

Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 8:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Everyone should have the right to healthcare. I think that's precisely backwards. In my view, it's not a matter of anyone having a "right" to healthcare but rather a case of us having an obligation to care for our infirm. K. I think that is a moral view, not a rights view not that I disagree with it,

NoirMetal -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 8:46:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Everyone should have the right to healthcare. I think that's precisely backwards. In my view, it's not a matter of anyone having a "right" to healthcare but rather a case of us having an obligation to care for our infirm. K. I think that is a moral view, not a rights view not that I disagree with it, Medicare was set up for the elderly, indigent and poor to use. The national health plan needs to provide reasonable access to the rest. "obamacare light" with bribes to the wealthy is not gonna cut it. That's why this shit bill was rejected.

tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:03:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Everyone should have the right to healthcare. I think that's precisely backwards. In my view, it's not a matter of anyone having a "right" to healthcare but rather a case of us having an obligation to care for our infirm. K. Yes. l agree with that. But access to healthcare also helps prevent people from becoming infirm. A pregnant woman is not infirm but needs care. There is a bigger issue than just caring for the sick.

Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:13:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirMetal quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Everyone should have the right to healthcare. I think that's precisely backwards. In my view, it's not a matter of anyone having a "right" to healthcare but rather a case of us having an obligation to care for our infirm. K. I think that is a moral view, not a rights view not that I disagree with it, Medicare was set up for the elderly, indigent and poor to use. The national health plan needs to provide reasonable access to the rest. "obamacare light" with bribes to the wealthy is not gonna cut it. That's why this shit bill was rejected. Cutting medicare by 880 billion should have been the rejection. how many people will lose access to insurance, let alone healthcare? What is reasonable access, to insurance or healthcare? Obamacare" lite", it isnt, its Scotus(republican) vicious.

NoirMetal -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: NoirMetal quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Everyone should have the right to healthcare. I think that's precisely backwards. In my view, it's not a matter of anyone having a "right" to healthcare but rather a case of us having an obligation to care for our infirm. K. I think that is a moral view, not a rights view not that I disagree with it, Medicare was set up for the elderly, indigent and poor to use. The national health plan needs to provide reasonable access to the rest. "obamacare light" with bribes to the wealthy is not gonna cut it. That's why this shit bill was rejected. Cutting medicare by 880 billion should have been the rejection. how many people will lose access to insurance, let alone healthcare? What is reasonable access, to insurance or healthcare? Obamacare" lite", it isnt, its Scotus(republican) vicious. They know the elderly population would fuck them back in the next election. Then it would be right back to gridlock. Even politicians have to face hard realities.

tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:20:40 PM)
Isn't there a difference between medicare and medicaid?

Kirata -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:22:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Everyone should have the right to healthcare. I think that's precisely backwards. In my view, it's not a matter of anyone having a "right" to healthcare but rather a case of us having an obligation to care for our infirm. I think that is a moral view, not a rights view not that I disagree with it, Well okay, I take your point. But if you want to frame it in terms of morality, then the morality that I am invoking here is biological, not philosophical. We are a species that has evolved a genetic endowment that inclines us to offer succor and protection to the weak and infirm, from which we may conclude that groups of humans that lacked it failed to thrive in the long run, and that to go against it will not benefit us in the long run either. So when I say that we have an obligation, I mean an obligation to ourselves, to be true to our humanity, and to resist those arguments that would ultimately betray us. K.

MakeM3Urs -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:23:34 PM)
Adopt the French system that takes half your income in taxes, but provides for all healthcare costs and retirement benefits.

tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:26:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Everyone does have the "right" to healthcare. Never have I heard of healthcare being refused because the patient had no right to it. Healthcare is denied solely on economic issues. If you don't have money or adequate insurance then you can easily be refused. Some see that as a moral issue, but in this country the majority apparently doesn't. I am old enough to remember when healthcare was affordable out of pocket. Then Medicare came along and medical treatment costs skyrocketed since no healthcare professionals seemed to mind sticking it to the government. Ever since healthcare costs have risen at a pace that leaves other inflation far behind. As far as I am concerned healthcare should be entirely private with no government involvement at all. Either that or adopt the French system that takes half your wages in taxes, but provides for all healthcare and retirement benefits. Anything in between just incentivizes cost increases. I think it is more that healthcare has become much more sophisticated and therefore much more expensive.

Kirata -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:37:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Everyone does have the "right" to healthcare. Never have I heard of healthcare being refused because the patient had no right to it. Healthcare is denied solely on economic issues. If you don't have money or adequate insurance then you can easily be refused. Some see that as a moral issue, but in this country the majority apparently doesn't. I am old enough to remember when healthcare was affordable out of pocket. Then Medicare came along and medical treatment costs skyrocketed since no healthcare professionals seemed to mind sticking it to the government. Ever since healthcare costs have risen at a pace that leaves other inflation far behind. As far as I am concerned healthcare should be entirely private with no government involvement at all. Either that or adopt the French system that takes half your wages in taxes, but provides for all healthcare and retirement benefits. Anything in between just incentivizes cost increases. I think it is more that healthcare has become much more sophisticated and therefore much more expensive. Maybe, but didn't the same thing happen with tuition costs after low-interest student loans became available? K.

tamaka -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 9:47:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Everyone does have the "right" to healthcare. Never have I heard of healthcare being refused because the patient had no right to it. Healthcare is denied solely on economic issues. If you don't have money or adequate insurance then you can easily be refused. Some see that as a moral issue, but in this country the majority apparently doesn't. I am old enough to remember when healthcare was affordable out of pocket. Then Medicare came along and medical treatment costs skyrocketed since no healthcare professionals seemed to mind sticking it to the government. Ever since healthcare costs have risen at a pace that leaves other inflation far behind. As far as I am concerned healthcare should be entirely private with no government involvement at all. Either that or adopt the French system that takes half your wages in taxes, but provides for all healthcare and retirement benefits. Anything in between just incentivizes cost increases. I think it is more that healthcare has become much more sophisticated and therefore much more expensive. Maybe, but didn't the same thing happen with tuition costs after low-interest student loans became available? K. I guess so. Greed sucks.

MrRodgers -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 10:00:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Adopt the French system that takes half your income in taxes, but provides for all healthcare costs and retirement benefits. No, the German system. They have 106 (medical) and other service insurance companies competing for business. They have 3 levels of hospital care. Private for-profit care, govt. non-profit care and charitable non-profit care. No smart aware German ever comes to the US for medical care. They have a payroll deduction much like we have for Medicare. If you are ever unemployed it is my understanding that once you are back to work, you must make up for when you weren't minus what was deducted from your unemployment insurance. Germany pretty much has it down and they began national health care in the late 1800's.

MrRodgers -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 10:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Everyone does have the "right" to healthcare. Never have I heard of healthcare being refused because the patient had no right to it. Healthcare is denied solely on economic issues. If you don't have money or adequate insurance then you can easily be refused. Some see that as a moral issue, but in this country the majority apparently doesn't. I am old enough to remember when healthcare was affordable out of pocket. Then Medicare came along and medical treatment costs skyrocketed since no healthcare professionals seemed to mind sticking it to the government. Ever since healthcare costs have risen at a pace that leaves other inflation far behind. As far as I am concerned healthcare should be entirely private with no government involvement at all. Either that or adopt the French system that takes half your wages in taxes, but provides for all healthcare and retirement benefits. Anything in between just incentivizes cost increases. I think it is more that healthcare has become much more sophisticated and therefore much more expensive. Maybe, but didn't the same thing happen with tuition costs after low-interest student loans became available? K. As happens with far too many non-profits, when there is a benefit to it extended or increased by govt., the admin. (bureaucracy) sucks it up. That's how we get high 6 and low 7 fig. deans and pres, of universities. In the medical world, a local hospital association (non-profit) had not only an admin. with a $1 million a year + salary but also had $31 million in 'non-profits.' This was No. Va, and around 1994 of I recall. Nice work if you can get it.

Lucylastic -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/23/2017 10:10:38 PM)
ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Everyone does have the "right" to healthcare. Never have I heard of healthcare being refused because the patient had no right to it. Healthcare is denied solely on economic issues. If you don't have money or adequate insurance then you can easily be refused. Some see that as a moral issue, but in this country the majority apparently doesn't. I am old enough to remember when healthcare was affordable out of pocket. Then Medicare came along and medical treatment costs skyrocketed since no healthcare professionals seemed to mind sticking it to the government. Ever since healthcare costs have risen at a pace that leaves other inflation far behind. As far as I am concerned healthcare should be entirely private with no government involvement at all. Either that or adopt the French system that takes half your wages in taxes, but provides for all healthcare and retirement benefits. Anything in between just incentivizes cost increases. /end This was more interesting

tweakabelle -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 12:07:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 almost anything that doesn't emphasize movement towards a free market is a non-starter for me. I haven't followed closely enough to say for sure but I suspect that's the freedom caucus folks' main objection too. anything with the government involved is going to be Obamacare-lite. unfortunately, once you "give" something to someone, no matter even if its bad, taking it back is a challenge. You know... in everything there has to be balance. Personally i don't think healthcare should be a money-making enterprise. Finally at long long last you have said something intelligent. Now that you have discovered this standard please try and achieve it in the future. Of course healthcare and money-making don't sit side by side easily. The object of healthcare is improving the patient's health. The object of a money making enterprise is making money. Which makes discussion of healthcare a pretty straightforward proposition: If you believe healthcare is about improving people's health, then you will reject a free market healthcare system. If you believe healthcare should be about making money, then you will favour a free market healthcare system. Oddly enough if you believe in healthcare systems that actually save money instead of enriching private interests at the expense of public health, then you will favour a national health insurance scheme operated by the Govt. This kind of system has proved itself to be the cheapest most efficient and best method of providing high quality healthcare to all the people again and again all over the world.

Kirata -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 1:47:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: MakeM3Urs Adopt the French system that takes half your income in taxes, but provides for all healthcare costs and retirement benefits. No, the German system. FYI World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems 1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan Germany ranks 25th, and the U.S. comes in at 37th. K.

NoirMetal -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 2:06:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Isn't there a difference between medicare and medicaid? yes,they work for different classes of people. I'm not totally versed in how each works yet-I have my insurance through my work.

bounty44 -> RE: ..."arch-conservatives rejected it" (3/24/2017 4:39:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery He's playing a philosophical game with you, one that could go on for decades. if you were half as smart as you think you are, you would recognize im simply trying to get her to speak from an articulated and recognizable worldview. stating its a "right" without being able to say how/why its a right doesn't make it so. simply stating its "morally right" without being able say why, doesn't make it so. saying its "common sense" doesn't make it so nor does it make it a right. oh and, fuck you. if you wonder why I am not interested in talking with you, theres another example.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375