RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege?

RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/5/2007 3:30:08 PM)
As I have posted before, when a system is created and its users "see" that someone else is going to pay, then there is no doubt, IMO, that that system will be abused. Without any doubt, as I see it, that is the problem with a "universal" supply of anything. That difficulty needs a solution. NO?

thompsonx -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/5/2007 4:50:24 PM)
My experience with the VA health care system has been limited to the Loma Linda and Long Beach California facilities. What I have found is that they are cleaner than a jarhead mess hall, polite, helpful and proactive. I am chronicaly healthy but I ride a motor cycle and participate in physical sports consequently I have suffered more than a few mechanical trauma...to the point that they now search me by hand at the airport...I have always recieved first rate care at the VA facilities I have utilized. Yes I have heard the horror stories and have friends who have first hand knowledge of such. It just has not happened to me...but then I always have been pretty lucky. thompson

Archer -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/5/2007 5:10:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Archer If we set a figure of what is considered a fair profit then what they spend or do not spend becomes less important. Since the figure sets a relationship based on investment and profit. So again lets take a wild stab at what is a fair profit. I am convinced from many of your previous posts that you do not feel that anyone may assume what is a fair profit in a free enterprise system. If on the other hand we consider state monopolies like the power company then the state determines what is a fair profit. My statement was in response to your substantiating the profit margins of the drug companies based on what they spend on research as if what they spent on research was a huge number and consequently requiring corresponding profits...I was simply pointing out that the drug companies spend much more on advertising and lobbying than they do on research. Would you like to justify profit margins based on how much they spend on lobbying? Advertising and lobbying are recognized expenses, unless you want to change those rules for all business concerns. Three examples of LOCAL government functions by and large. Police Fire and Education are pretty much local matters so apples and oranges compared to a nationwide healthcare system. Hardly apples and oranges since police fire and education are nationwide and all local jurisdictions are subject to the federal government. The local police department the town of Adelanto, California was recently disbanded by the department of justice and replaced by the county sherrif because of its criminal behaviour. Exactly Apples and Oranges both fruits but different enough. Unless the federal laws are being broken, local jurisdictions generally only get funding from Federal government for various programs the Federal government generally stays out of the day to day operations. They may set a required standard for matching funds but that's generally it. As to the Constitution's General Welfare clause it says Promote the general welfare not provide for it. Removal of obsticles to opportunity is a far cry from giving away someone elses money. Just how would one remove the obsticals to access to health care by the poor. You like to keep using the phrase "giving away someone elses money" The government does not do anything to earn money. The government taxes the citizens in order to get money to do what government does. Government funds libraries,education,fire protection,police protection and on and on ...health care would be just one more in a long list of things the government can and should do. If you feel that government should not do this one need only look at what governments lack of action in this area has accomplished. If you choose to buy a home the government subsidizes you by allowing you to deduct from your taxable income the amount that you pay in interest on your mortgage. Why do they do this? Because it is felt that home ownership is a good thing for our society. Why does the government provide public education? Because it is felt the an educated citizen is good for society. So also are healthy citizens good for society, consequently it would follow that the government would tax us to pay for it just as they tax us to pay for the other services that are deemed to be in the best interest of our society. thompson Thank you for the party line of socialistic/ progressive/ liberal interpritation of the general welfare clause. It's about a 6th grade government class level lesson. You can spout the opinion all day long as I can spout the libertarian or conservative argument that it means removal of obsticles to people getting the nessesities of life for themselves so long as they are not doing so by infringing on the rights of someone else by force or theft including through fraud. The arguments are well past the point of simply stating them. Rather it is more usefull to discuss the values/ ideas that get one to the possition. or to p[ropose ideas for solving the problems according to our respective camps. (grin)

thompsonx -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/5/2007 5:13:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave As I have posted before, when a system is created and its users "see" that someone else is going to pay, then there is no doubt, IMO, that that system will be abused. Without any doubt, as I see it, that is the problem with a "universal" supply of anything. That difficulty needs a solution. NO? seeksfemslave: I can see your point. Those with big noses will breath more of our air. The larger amongst us will take up more space. The more intelligent will soak up more knowledge. Somehow I just don't understand why you are against some people being sicker than the rest of us....I am just glad it is not me. I have never had children but I pay taxes for schools because ignorant people are annoying. I pay taxes for trash removal but I do not generate any but I know most do and it is a health hazard to let it pile up. Allowing people to be sick is a risk to healthy people. Why do we form ourselves into societies? Is it so the rich can look down on the not rich and castigate them for not being as greedy and aviricious as themselves. Is the only purpose for the formation of a society to gain as much physical property as one can and measure our wealth by the lack of wealth of others? The only people I see abusing the health care system in my country are the doctors and the pharmaceutical companies. The fact that some poor guy whose dick wont get hard gets some chemical help in getting laid does not offend me. The fact that some woman who wants to have a perky set of hooters to improve her self image does not offend me. The fact that the pharmaceutical company charges what it does for the feel good drugs and the doctors who charge what they do for the feel good surgury that offends me. All the whining about creaping socialism from the very ones who lobby against the free enterprise system are the ones who offend me. Doctors artificially limit their numbers to keep their wages high. Doctors and pharmaceutical companies lobby congress to limit law suits so that their imcompetence and outright negligence can not be punished. That offends me. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/5/2007 5:36:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Archer If we set a figure of what is considered a fair profit then what they spend or do not spend becomes less important. Since the figure sets a relationship based on investment and profit. So again lets take a wild stab at what is a fair profit. I am convinced from many of your previous posts that you do not feel that anyone may assume what is a fair profit in a free enterprise system. If on the other hand we consider state monopolies like the power company then the state determines what is a fair profit. My statement was in response to your substantiating the profit margins of the drug companies based on what they spend on research as if what they spent on research was a huge number and consequently requiring corresponding profits...I was simply pointing out that the drug companies spend much more on advertising and lobbying than they do on research. Would you like to justify profit margins based on how much they spend on lobbying? Advertising and lobbying are recognized expenses, unless you want to change those rules for all business concerns. I am glad you acknowledge and agree with my point. Three examples of LOCAL government functions by and large. Police Fire and Education are pretty much local matters so apples and oranges compared to a nationwide healthcare system. Hardly apples and oranges since police fire and education are nationwide and all local jurisdictions are subject to the federal government. The local police department the town of Adelanto, California was recently disbanded by the department of justice and replaced by the county sherrif because of its criminal behaviour. Exactly Apples and Oranges both fruits but different enough. Unless the federal laws are being broken, local jurisdictions generally only get funding from Federal government for various programs the Federal government generally stays out of the day to day operations. They may set a required standard for matching funds but that's generally it. Thank you again for agreeing with my point that federal oversight covers local institutions. As to the Constitution's General Welfare clause it says Promote the general welfare not provide for it. Removal of obsticles to opportunity is a far cry from giving away someone elses money. Just how would one remove the obsticals to access to health care by the poor. You like to keep using the phrase "giving away someone elses money" The government does not do anything to earn money. The government taxes the citizens in order to get money to do what government does. Government funds libraries,education,fire protection,police protection and on and on ...health care would be just one more in a long list of things the government can and should do. If you feel that government should not do this one need only look at what governments lack of action in this area has accomplished. If you choose to buy a home the government subsidizes you by allowing you to deduct from your taxable income the amount that you pay in interest on your mortgage. Why do they do this? Because it is felt that home ownership is a good thing for our society. Why does the government provide public education? Because it is felt the an educated citizen is good for society. So also are healthy citizens good for society, consequently it would follow that the government would tax us to pay for it just as they tax us to pay for the other services that are deemed to be in the best interest of our society. thompson Thank you for the party line of socialistic/ progressive/ liberal interpritation of the general welfare clause. It's about a 6th grade government class level lesson. I fail to see where I have offered a party line on anything. What I have done is ask you a question which you have chosen to answer with rhetoric. You can spout the opinion all day long as I can spout the libertarian or conservative argument This is not a left right conservative liberal discussion...so please do not try to make it one. that it means removal of obsticles to people getting the nessesities of life for themselves so long as they are not doing so by infringing on the rights of someone else by force or theft including through fraud The only ones infringing on the rights of others by force,theft and fraud are medical and pharmaceutical establishment. The arguments are well past the point of simply stating them. Rather it is more usefull to discuss the values/ ideas that get one to the possition. or to p[ropose ideas for solving the problems according to our respective camps. (grin) As long as you choose to state the problem in terms of the greedy loafers trying to suck the life blood out of the productive members of society we have not clearly stated the problem. thompson

Arpig -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/5/2007 6:04:20 PM)
It should be a right...and luckily for me I live in a country with universal government funded health care (good thing too, otherwise my eldest male unmentionable would have died last week)

seeksfemslave -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 1:21:58 AM)
Thompson: your post 221 raises some good points which are IMO impossible to disagree with.. In fact I am in favour of the UK NHS and I do not have private insurance. I have over the years paid plenty of tax into the system tho' Still do. However the NHS was set up to provide needed basic medical care, not to make people happy per se, not to spend more and more on bureacrats , managers, image consultants etc etc. An example of excessive medical care is that accorded to pregnant women. Simply millions are spent on ante natal care which for the most part produces no worthwhile benefit. To find say 10 abnormalities when regularly testing 50 thousand women, and spend large amounts doing it, is not good business sense. That money could either be not spent at all or diverted to say geriatric care. Similarly with IVF treatment. Counselling of various kinds etc etc It is that lack of discipline that causes NHS costs, and welfare costs in general to spiral out of control when the organisations, ultimately, are controlled by "accountable" politicians and management delegated to state funded empire builders.

SubmissiveSissie -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 1:38:11 AM)
It should be a right. In Canada all healthcare is free. The government takes enough ****ing money from everyone who works. If you're a hard working citezen with a paycheck coming in every week, you deserve free healthcare. If you're a bum who collect welfare checks every month, pay for your own stuff. That's how I look at it. A right to people who deserve it. A priviledge to those who don't.

Zensee -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 2:37:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SubmissiveSissie If you're a bum who collect welfare checks every month, pay for your own stuff. That's how I look at it. A right to people who deserve it. A priviledge to those who don't. SubmissiveSissie - I think that being a "right", as defined in this thread at least, means it is available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Your position is essentially that is should be a privilege. In Canada healthcare is not free but it is accessable to all and for those unable to pay the public premiums it is essentially free. When you go to the doctor or hospital, the insurance you paid into, covers the cost (or most of it at least). And of course it all eventually comes out of our taxes... Z.

meatcleaver -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 3:32:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Without any doubt, as I see it, that is the problem with a "universal" supply of anything. That difficulty needs a solution. NO? If people have a problem with paying for universal healhcare, I have a problem with paying for the roads people drive their fucking SUVs on since I don't own a car. It would be much cheaper for me if there was only bus lanes and tramlines in the town. Why the fuck should people pay for other people's luxury if they can't be arsed to contribute a little something so eveyone can have healthcare? While we are at it, why the fuck should people pay for a military to go and fight wars for corporate America?

izzybella -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 4:31:56 AM)
Why is it that americans are always harping on about that old chestnut that you can do anything you want if you just pull yourself up by your bootstraps?? Tell that to the kids who lives in a district where their school isnt given enough funding for them to get a decent education. Also who says that you need to tax anyone any more than you already do?? Hows about just spending the taxes in areas that dont involve guns and people dying. I am quite glad that I live in a country with a relatively socialised healthcare system. Does it have its faults? Sure but no one will ever be turned away from an emergency room or not given treatment needed to stay alive. I would much rather deal with a little beauracracy and have my life saved than live some libertarian fantasy and die homeless of an easily curable infection because I wasnt covered by health insurance. I like to judge a country by its lowest common denominator not by the highest, and in my book most modern countries are failing miserably. If you think that it is the rich person in the fancy house driving the expensive car that is the way you should look at how well your country is doing then im afraid you need a lesson in the real world. I happen to be a member of one of them nasty unions and I am glad that I am, it means that I make a decent living wage. However why is always those who are doing ok in life that seem to think it is fine that others should suffer for the sin of being poor, you dont hear too many homeless people or those on benefits crying out for people to look after their own damn self. It is really easy to slag people down when they are less fortunate than you but try looking at it from the perspective of someone who isnt as fortunate as you, that is called empathy which seems to be in short supply these days.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 4:55:05 AM)
Well Izzy I think I have "empathy" but if you think that many thousands of wealthy dont do well by a Socialised Heatlh service then I think you are wrong. Take a look at the numbers of managerial types who "earn" excellent salaries with non contributory pension schemes. as a bonus. Who pays for all that lot then ? Meatcleaver: intemperate as usual Feed him a history book somebody lol I think submissivesissie has lost his way and is a Dom in disguise !

izzybella -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 5:19:21 AM)
I dont have a problem with the wealthy using free health care. I never stated that I have a problem with the wealthy using the same healthcare as the not so fortunate, if they pay the levy like everyone else then I would think that it is their right to do so. Funnily enough when my mother was getting chemo for breat cancer a few years ago she used to have hers done at the same time as another woman every week. Anyways the woman was part of a private health care fund and asked my mum how much she was paying for her chemo. My mum told her that she wasnt paying a cent which was true and the other woman told her that even though she was paying quite a lot of money for her private health cover, they were only covering a limited amount of the fees and she was being forced to make up the difference which was somewhere in the vicinity of thousands over the course of her treatment. The next week she went to her provider and told them that she was backing out of her cover and was then covered by public cover and didnt have to pay another cent. Thats the wholepoint of it, it is universal. Here in australia we have a thing called the medicare levy at the moment I think it is around 1 per cent of income or something in that ball park. However people are given incentives to take up private health cover. Sorry I really dont have any idea what a non contributory pension scheme given to someone has to do with providing a safety net for the disadvantaged. And i dunno but if they get it as part of their salary then I would guess that their employer is paying for it?? To me of you are a managerial worker you are still working for a wage and I have a white collar job that most would consider managerial so who am i to throw stones?

thompsonx -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 5:29:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Thompson: your post 221 raises some good points which are IMO impossible to disagree with.. In fact I am in favour of the UK NHS and I do not have private insurance. I have over the years paid plenty of tax into the system tho' Still do. All of my points are irrefragable that is why I post them[;)]. However the NHS was set up to provide needed basic medical care, not to make people happy per se, not to spend more and more on bureacrats , managers, image consultants etc etc. We both agree that the scum who skim should be replaced with non scum that don't skim. An example of excessive medical care is that accorded to pregnant women. Simply millions are spent on ante natal care which for the most part produces no worthwhile benefit. To find say 10 abnormalities when regularly testing 50 thousand women, and spend large amounts doing it, is not good business sense. That money could either be not spent at all or diverted to say geriatric care. Similarly with IVF treatment. Counselling of various kinds etc etc While I would agree that money should be spent first where it is most needed I do not feel that you or I are in a position to deny someone treatment for those things that do not affect us directly. It is clear that me and thee will need geriatic care sooner than later and will never need IVF. On the other hand I am sure that some on these boards would recomend both of us for counselling. My thoughts are that who among us could not benifit from counsel. It is common to be dismissive of those who woud seek intelectual or emotional medication. It is a well understood axiom in medicine that a healthy mind leads inexorably to a healthy body . It is that lack of discipline that causes NHS costs, and welfare costs in general to spiral out of control when the organisations, ultimately, are controlled by "accountable" politicians and management delegated to state funded empire builders. Is it really a lack of discipline or the fact that there are some greedy people who behave in a reprehensible manner for their own selfish ends. Then instead of the populace grabbing the offenders by the scruff of the neck and tossing them in jail for their fraudulant behaviour we castigate the recipients of the system as being the problem. thompson

popeye1250 -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 12:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Without any doubt, as I see it, that is the problem with a "universal" supply of anything. That difficulty needs a solution. NO? If people have a problem with paying for universal healhcare, I have a problem with paying for the roads people drive their fucking SUVs on since I don't own a car. It would be much cheaper for me if there was only bus lanes and tramlines in the town. Why the fuck should people pay for other people's luxury if they can't be arsed to contribute a little something so eveyone can have healthcare? While we are at it, why the fuck should people pay for a military to go and fight wars for corporate America? Meat, good points. Our politicians keep telling us that the U.S. has "interests" in S. Korea and that is why we've had 37,000 Troops guarding their border for 54 years now with "shoot to kill" orders. I don't have any "interests" in S. Korea. And it's certainly not in my "interest" that my Troops are protecting private businesses "interests" and profits who have plants in S. Korea. So Taxpayers are paying to protect the profits of big business? Those businesses need to hire their own private security. And, they owe us a LOT of money!

Dtesmoac -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 6:55:24 PM)
Spoke with some US workers today, question I asked was If you have no medical insurance and needed chemo therapy would you be able to get the treatment. The response was that they did not think you would be able to get it, if you did you wouldn't be able to pay the bills, one persone said that by the time her mum had gone through the process with doctor and insurance company to see if she was eligable for the treatment the treatment should have started. Also on the news today, third biggest reason for people in US having their houses repossessed in US is because they get sick and have to pay medical bills. Add that to the USA today story saying that uninsured children are twice as likely to die as insured children (see my previous link). The current US system is not about "individuals paying their way" or "poor people are too lazy to get good enough jobs with medical care" it is medical appartied and based on luck. Social class system of the first degree. ...here endeth my rant.

Archer -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 8:25:17 PM)
WOW the classism I keep seeing here is the anti wealth classism, somebody worked to get the wealth gathered and their payoff is that their family doesn't have to worry for generations who amoung us wouldn't want that same security for generations of our offspring? Luck, Fortune, Greed, etc all the class warfare favorites, Luck and fortune imply that the person didn't do anything to get where they are that their situation is based on happenstance not hard work or good decission making skills. Sorry doesn't fit the facts in the US since the majority of millionaires today are "self made" sure they don't do it all on their own but the decissions they made certainly had more to do with making it than luck or fortune. Greed I have yet to hear any deent defintion that was objective as opposed to subjective for greed. Seeking more than one needs? leaves open to interpritation who decides what we need as a subjective matter. It's far less a matter of not wanting to pay anything for someone elses healthcare in my book than it is a matter of not seeing government as the means to distribute healthcare. Adjusting policy so that it becomes more possible for folks to afford it on their own (Like deductions for home loan intyerests etc mentioned earlier fine) But I don't see the government as the solution to directly providing all our needs.) WHat next Universal food distribution certainly food is a right if healthcare is, Housing provided for all by the government if healthcare especially preventative is a Government pervue then certainly housing and food for everyone would prevent more disease than medicine would cure/ Hell lets just have the government feed us house us and raise us all to mediocrity.

farglebargle -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 8:26:34 PM)
The only thing the government does effectively is hire more government employees.

caitlyn -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 9:18:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Hell lets just have the government feed us house us and raise us all to mediocrity. Can't we have both ... free healthcare & free food for the poor, and maybe even someplace to live when you have noplace else to go ... while still allowing the rich to have all the perks they've worked for? Myself, I find it a little strange that you mention classism, and yet insist that providing for the poor, will somehow allow the government to force you into medicority. I don't make that connection. Hell, I can't even see how you get there, other than using an extreme example to support the status quo. I can't say that I often agree with Meatcleaver, but he once mentioned that his brother said that America was a bad place to be down on your luck. I couldn't agree more ... America tends to be vicious and heartless, to those in trouble ...especially children.

farglebargle -> RE: Should healthcare be a right or a privilege? (3/6/2007 11:23:06 PM)
I suggest we cut federal taxes to whatever degree necessary to fund the Local School Boards oversight of all social welfare functions. Combine that with nice breaks for Corps who kick in supplies, resources, etc, and it might work. Upon reading this, it's obvious that since it could be very responsive, empowering, and effective, it would never possibly come to pass.

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 [12] 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875