Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
quote:
I won't buy your argument. No one is imposing "punishment" by not providing health care. If that argument is valid, then every person who is not healed by medical treatment, or the lack of it, has received the "death penalty".

Two totally different concepts and you are only using the word "punishment" for it's shock value. It does not apply here.


Sassy Kims,

What would you suggest that the solution be for a quadriplegic who has no family and cannot work? Leave him out on the streets and let him die? Without any sort of welfare system, that is exactly what would happen.

How about old people who are in poverty? Let them die of treatable geriatric illnesses because they are poor and can't afford healthcare? What do we do? Tell them "Sorry, but since you're poor, you wont get the treatment of the rich, so that diabetes is going to go untreated and shorten your lifespan considerably." Is that what we need to tell them?

How about a man born with a crooked arm? Do you expect him just to "will it" straight through mind control so that he can work?

And don't give me the argument of "charities will do it." With charities, there is no guarantee, as most of them are worse at allocating funds than even the government.

Sorry, Sassy, get with the times. There needs to be either very affordable (like under $50 a month) healthcare OR there needs to be a government funded system that covers everyone. If the Iraq war wouldn't have happened, those trillions could have gotten us most of the way to covering everyone for several years to come.


And it boils down to the Iraq war argument again. The funds spent on the Iraq war would not keep the US heath industry afloat for a month, and probably not for a week.

Think up some other what if... that one won't fly.

And, as the original post said. You have no "right" to health care.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
quote:
I won't buy your argument. No one is imposing "punishment" by not providing health care. If that argument is valid, then every person who is not healed by medical treatment, or the lack of it, has received the "death penalty".

Two totally different concepts and you are only using the word "punishment" for it's shock value. It does not apply here.


Sassy Kims,

What would you suggest that the solution be for a quadriplegic who has no family and cannot work? Leave him out on the streets and let him die? Without any sort of welfare system, that is exactly what would happen.

How about old people who are in poverty? Let them die of treatable geriatric illnesses because they are poor and can't afford healthcare? What do we do? Tell them "Sorry, but since you're poor, you wont get the treatment of the rich, so that diabetes is going to go untreated and shorten your lifespan considerably." Is that what we need to tell them?

How about a man born with a crooked arm? Do you expect him just to "will it" straight through mind control so that he can work?

And don't give me the argument of "charities will do it." With charities, there is no guarantee, as most of them are worse at allocating funds than even the government.

Sorry, Sassy, get with the times. There needs to be either very affordable (like under $50 a month) healthcare OR there needs to be a government funded system that covers everyone. If the Iraq war wouldn't have happened, those trillions could have gotten us most of the way to covering everyone for several years to come.


You expect too much from the anti-government, Randians. They are more interested in ideology and satisfying some pure ideal of capitalism than taking care of people. For them it is far more important to view the world in terms of taxation, economics, personal enrichment and self. They view themselves as the saviors of the free market, the American way. The poor are lazy, shiftless, enemies of the free market and drags on the economy. They don't pay for anyone but themselves. Pinkos are around every corner, and Commies are just ahead. Just have a look at the title of this thread "Your rights. Deal with it". Its angry. Its like a closed fist. Its a mission. There is no compromise, no consensus and no question.


Try individualism...you'd be closer to the truth than the pitiful diatribe you diarrhetically spewed above. You've never met anybody more against taxation that me.
quote:
Originally posted by michael.coffee:
Umm, no. You're the one who keeps suggesting -that-. I certainly never have.

I would rather live in a society where theft is illegal for everybody; and take the -risk- that people will help one another voluntarily.

You find it very easy to decide what is best to do with OTHER peoples' property.


You are living under the impression that our present system of healthcare under which the poor go to hospitals and receive care which is then not paid for is somehow cheaper than universal healthcare insurance. Have a look at Romneys plan in Mass. We do pay for the uninsured when they cannot pay their hospital bills ya know.
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
quote:
I won't buy your argument. No one is imposing "punishment" by not providing health care. If that argument is valid, then every person who is not healed by medical treatment, or the lack of it, has received the "death penalty".

Two totally different concepts and you are only using the word "punishment" for it's shock value. It does not apply here.


Sassy Kims,

What would you suggest that the solution be for a quadriplegic who has no family and cannot work? Leave him out on the streets and let him die? Without any sort of welfare system, that is exactly what would happen.

How about old people who are in poverty? Let them die of treatable geriatric illnesses because they are poor and can't afford healthcare? What do we do? Tell them "Sorry, but since you're poor, you wont get the treatment of the rich, so that diabetes is going to go untreated and shorten your lifespan considerably." Is that what we need to tell them?

How about a man born with a crooked arm? Do you expect him just to "will it" straight through mind control so that he can work?

And don't give me the argument of "charities will do it." With charities, there is no guarantee, as most of them are worse at allocating funds than even the government.

Sorry, Sassy, get with the times. There needs to be either very affordable (like under $50 a month) healthcare OR there needs to be a government funded system that covers everyone. If the Iraq war wouldn't have happened, those trillions could have gotten us most of the way to covering everyone for several years to come.


You expect too much from the anti-government, Randians. They are more interested in ideology and satisfying some pure ideal of capitalism than taking care of people. For them it is far more important to view the world in terms of taxation, economics, personal enrichment and self. They view themselves as the saviors of the free market, the American way. The poor are lazy, shiftless, enemies of the free market and drags on the economy. They don't pay for anyone but themselves. Pinkos are around every corner, and Commies are just ahead. Just have a look at the title of this thread "Your rights. Deal with it". Its angry. Its like a closed fist. Its a mission. There is no compromise, no consensus and no question.


Try individualism...you'd be closer to the truth than the pitiful diatribe you diarrhetically spewed above. You've never met anybody more against taxation that me.


Touched a nerve I see. It must be terrible to have such deeply felt, yet unsatisfied philosophy.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
You are living under the impression that our present system ... is somehow cheaper.....
Now you're just making stuff up. I never said or implied anything about any price of anything.

You're right; the law does currently force hospitals to give their services away, if the patient doesn't pay. The government also runs a lot of free clinics.

A further government takeover of the insurance and/or medical industries is just more of the problem; not a solution.

Just another laundry list of reasons people need something; and another string of human interest stories to tug at the heart strings; is standard fare for every special interest out there trying to bend the coercive influence of the government in their favor.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by SittinPurdy:
quote:
I won't buy your argument. No one is imposing "punishment" by not providing health care. If that argument is valid, then every person who is not healed by medical treatment, or the lack of it, has received the "death penalty".

Two totally different concepts and you are only using the word "punishment" for it's shock value. It does not apply here.


Sassy Kims,

What would you suggest that the solution be for a quadriplegic who has no family and cannot work? Leave him out on the streets and let him die? Without any sort of welfare system, that is exactly what would happen.

How about old people who are in poverty? Let them die of treatable geriatric illnesses because they are poor and can't afford healthcare? What do we do? Tell them "Sorry, but since you're poor, you wont get the treatment of the rich, so that diabetes is going to go untreated and shorten your lifespan considerably." Is that what we need to tell them?

How about a man born with a crooked arm? Do you expect him just to "will it" straight through mind control so that he can work?

And don't give me the argument of "charities will do it." With charities, there is no guarantee, as most of them are worse at allocating funds than even the government.

Sorry, Sassy, get with the times. There needs to be either very affordable (like under $50 a month) healthcare OR there needs to be a government funded system that covers everyone. If the Iraq war wouldn't have happened, those trillions could have gotten us most of the way to covering everyone for several years to come.


You expect too much from the anti-government, Randians. They are more interested in ideology and satisfying some pure ideal of capitalism than taking care of people. For them it is far more important to view the world in terms of taxation, economics, personal enrichment and self. They view themselves as the saviors of the free market, the American way. The poor are lazy, shiftless, enemies of the free market and drags on the economy. They don't pay for anyone but themselves. Pinkos are around every corner, and Commies are just ahead. Just have a look at the title of this thread "Your rights. Deal with it". Its angry. Its like a closed fist. Its a mission. There is no compromise, no consensus and no question.


Try individualism...you'd be closer to the truth than the pitiful diatribe you diarrhetically spewed above. You've never met anybody more against taxation that me.


Touched a nerve I see. It must be terrible to have such deeply felt, yet unsatisfied philosophy.


You wish. The desire to give away care to any and all who wish it amuses me, as it can never be attained, for it will financially ruin the "golden goose", yet the panderers of those who exploit the generosity of American taxpayers seem hell bent to try.
I think perhaps a large part of the problem in implementing your philosophy is the large percentage of the religious in our nation and in the west in general. Judeo-Christian values are based on caring for the poor and downtrodden. There are many ways to do this of course, but the majority of Americans will support some form of "universal" healthcare. I suspect with a good percentage of support from the Christian community. It is one of the top concerns for Americans according to almost every poll. It still goes back to the satisfaction of your philosophical position. It is an extreme that will be difficult for the majority of Americans to embrace and as such, will probably remain a dream for you. Egoism/ individualism is not consistant with Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
I think perhaps a large part of the problem in implementing your philosophy is the large percentage of the religious in our nation and in the west in general. Judeo-Christian values are based on caring for the poor and downtrodden. There are many ways to do this of course, but the majority of Americans will support some form of "universal" healthcare. I suspect with a good percentage of support from the Christian community. It is one of the top concerns for Americans according to almost every poll. It still goes back to the satisfaction of your philosophical position. It is an extreme that will be difficult for the majority of Americans to embrace and as such, will probably remain a dream for you. Egoism/ individualism is not consistant with Christianity.


Not true. If it were true, we would have already have universal health care for many years. Churches and the voting public would have already seen to it.

Or are all of that "majority of Americans", the "christians" you speak of just now getting their conscious rubbed raw because it's an election issue brought up by the left?
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
I think perhaps a large part of the problem in implementing your philosophy is the large percentage of the religious in our nation and in the west in general. Judeo-Christian values are based on caring for the poor and downtrodden. There are many ways to do this of course, but the majority of Americans will support some form of "universal" healthcare. I suspect with a good percentage of support from the Christian community. It is one of the top concerns for Americans according to almost every poll. It still goes back to the satisfaction of your philosophical position. It is an extreme that will be difficult for the majority of Americans to embrace and as such, will probably remain a dream for you. Egoism/ individualism is not consistant with Christianity.


Not true. If it were true, we would have already have universal health care for many years. Churches and the voting public would have already seen to it.

Or are all of that "majority of Americans", the "christians" you speak of just now getting their conscious rubbed raw because it's an election issue brought up by the left?


Actually the "right" has its own versions of "universal" healthcare. The most notable would be Romney's.

Here is McCain's

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03...cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

Healthcare remains as one of the top 5 most important issues to voters both left and right. I think your personal philosophy, no matter how strongly held, is not the same as the majority of Americans.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
I think perhaps a large part of the problem in implementing your philosophy is the large percentage of the religious in our nation and in the west in general. Judeo-Christian values are based on caring for the poor and downtrodden. There are many ways to do this of course, but the majority of Americans will support some form of "universal" healthcare. I suspect with a good percentage of support from the Christian community. It is one of the top concerns for Americans according to almost every poll. It still goes back to the satisfaction of your philosophical position. It is an extreme that will be difficult for the majority of Americans to embrace and as such, will probably remain a dream for you. Egoism/ individualism is not consistant with Christianity.


Not true. If it were true, we would have already have universal health care for many years. Churches and the voting public would have already seen to it.

Or are all of that "majority of Americans", the "christians" you speak of just now getting their conscious rubbed raw because it's an election issue brought up by the left?


Actually the "right" has its own versions of "universal" healthcare. The most notable would be Romney's.

Here is McCain's

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03...cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm

Healthcare remains as one of the top 5 most important issues to voters both left and right. I think your personal philosophy, no matter how strongly held, is not the same as the majority of Americans.


I've seen no evidence to the contrary indicating the majority of Americans want their tax dollars to subsidize socialized health care. John McCain's proposals are to control costs and improve access, not offer care at the expense of the taxpayer.

And all this banter still does not dispute my original post....there is no right to health care.
Has anyone ever noticed that Ayn Rand looked like a strange child parented by Diana Vreeland and Nancy Kulp (Miss Jane Hathaway on TBH)? I suspect that the Randroids have their Galt Gulch already set up merely awaiting for the day for their retreat from the evils of the "collectivist" world.

There, safe in their hollow they shall practice the only legitimate moral emperitive: self satisfaction and autonomy. Until they fill their courts with law suits, no one works to take out the garbage and they don't know how to do more than argue over interpretation and whether or not someone is practicing altruism save practice their bazooka fire accuracy.

Hard core laisser-faire Randroid BS is not worth the argument over the rise or fall of rat pies in China. It is a game that people who do not play well with others practice and in the process parrot discredited soi-disant hopeful erstwhile "scholars," "pundits" and "experts." Theirs is the only way, it is as rigid as Stalinism or Trotskyite blather. Nuance does not exist. The world is black and white. The paranoia associated with this lot is astonishing. I do wish they could learn to play in society, as we are by definition gregarious apes. However, all for which we can hope, I fear, is that they merely cease running with scissors.

Most people grow out of the stage of blind acceptance of anything loosely termed philosphic guidelines and develop their own after merely being "informed" by others' idea. Not so for the mighty individualists! They are always right, and they will bore you to death until you tire to the point of removing them from your presence.

These are the people who lift an article from an infotainer from a web site that few read or choose acknowledge existence thereof, and then mingle their own prose -- and it does meet the definition of prose as strictly interpreted -- although diatribe might be more accurate, mingled with the originaor's words, then expect the reader to know where one ends and the other begins and that a link is accurate for discerning the difference. That is plagiarism in my book, it does not merely consist of lifting words unattributed, but also of ideas in whole with no individual change in the concept without attribution.

Theirs is not the world of dialectic rather of parroting and then rephrasing the former. The appeal to "expert" is fine, so long as the "expert" actually is sane and one accepts that theirs is not the only view in the world that counts.

"Sassy wanna cracker!" "Sassy wanna cracker, pretty bird, pretty bird!" "A=A"
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
It's all very easy to say "the government can pay for it." But that's dissembling...that money doesn't just come from thin air. Taking your logic to an extreme, should every homeless alcoholic have a taxpayer-paid liver transplant? How about every sick mexican or other central american that can get across the border? There comes a time when you just have to say STOP! I certainly don't want to pay higher taxes to give everyone health care.

You say that charity has no guarantees. But charity is more effective at this sort of thing than government could ever be, and at least it's voluntary.

And most of the "trillions from the Iraq war" have created jobs. What, did you think we baled the money up and bombed insurgents with it?


What jobs did this war create when corporations are outsourcing at record highs? People are losing their homes because there are no jobs? I think you should be put in charge of telling the thousands of homeless or near homeless people where to apply!!!! QUICKLY!

You are definitely sharing the wormwood with Franklin and Jefferson....
Why hello Kneel,

Have you wet yourself while almost being slapped by any girls lately? Abandoned any more school children when somebody stomped their foot?

BTW..."Kneel" is in honor of your favorite activity...surrender in the face of hostility. Big Grin

Try sticking to the topic. Your little diatribe of irrelevant statements doesn't change or challenge the original point of the post: You have no right to health care.
quote:
Originally posted by Yo estoy de Russellvilla:
What jobs did this war create when corporations are outsourcing at record highs? People are losing their homes because there are no jobs? I think you should be put in charge of telling the thousands of homeless or near homeless people where to apply!!!! QUICKLY!

You are definitely sharing the wormwood with Franklin and Jefferson....


Someone builds the tanks, bombs, airplanes, Humvees, and other implements of war. You know...manufacturing jobs like folks on this forum have complained about. Those are not outsourced. I mean, really, where do you think the money goes? Senator Jefferson's freezer?
neal,
"Has anyone ever noticed that Ayn Rand looked like a strange child parented by Diana Vreeland and Nancy Kulp (Miss Jane Hathaway on TBH)? I suspect that the Randroids have their Galt Gulch already set up merely awaiting for the day for their retreat from the evils of the "collectivist" world."

When a leftist is nearly on intellectual empty he shouts "racism!" When he has reached empty and even the fumes have dried up, he goes for the personal.

Small minds talk about people. Great minds speak of ideas and ideals. Neal, thanks for admitting you have no more arguments or anything constructive to contribute. No Galt's Gulch for me, but please feel free to assume the fetal postion and suck on your favorite blanket.

zip,

You're correct about the defense industry. State approves billions of dollars for export every year, to friendlies, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
neal,
"Has anyone ever noticed that Ayn Rand looked like a strange child parented by Diana Vreeland and Nancy Kulp (Miss Jane Hathaway on TBH)? I suspect that the Randroids have their Galt Gulch already set up merely awaiting for the day for their retreat from the evils of the "collectivist" world."

When a leftist is nearly on intellectual empty he shouts "racism!" When he has reached empty and even the fumes have dried up, he goes for the personal.

Small minds talk about people. Great minds speak of ideas and ideals. Neal, thanks for admitting you have no more arguments or anything constructive to contribute. No Galt's Gulch for me, but please feel free to assume the fetal postion and suck on your favorite blanket.

zip,

You're correct about the defense industry. State approves billions of dollars for export every year, to friendlies, of course.


HR,

If poor ole Kneel couldn't call people names, she wouldn't have anything to talk about.

It's her only defense...other than the surrender position.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by Yo estoy de Russellvilla:
What jobs did this war create when corporations are outsourcing at record highs? People are losing their homes because there are no jobs? I think you should be put in charge of telling the thousands of homeless or near homeless people where to apply!!!! QUICKLY!

You are definitely sharing the wormwood with Franklin and Jefferson....


Someone builds the tanks, bombs, airplanes, Humvees, and other implements of war. You know...manufacturing jobs like folks on this forum have complained about. Those are not outsourced. I mean, really, where do you think the money goes? Senator Jefferson's freezer?


Our own freaking President's helicopter fleet was outsourced to London!!!!!

Our computer support is outsourced to India! Our agriculture to South America, Mexico, and other nations! Our cars and electronics AND TOYS to Asia. What ISN'T OUTSOURCED?

There are college educated people who cannot find decent jobs in the SHOALS area (since this is the Shoals Forum). I am one of the vast sea of college grads who had to jump ship so I didn't end up working in retail for 25 years making $9.00 an hour....

And I'm not working in a plant. I went to SCHOOL fair and square. I chose to move. Others may choose to stay. But they won't make nearly what they deserve or should make.

This war did NOT create jobs. And especially none in the Shoals area where most of the forum posters are from.


A full 89% of American feel Iraq has negatively impacted our economy. 89% of Americans can hardly agree on anything, but amazingly, they agree on this.

It's impossible not to see the Iraq war - which has cost us $695 billion already and may cost as much as $3 trillion by the time we're done - as the millstone that is dragging America down into the economic depths of recession. It's impossible to discuss economic recovery or domestic growth while we're sending $195 million per day to our money pit in the Middle East for a war that never should have been waged in the first place.
Last edited by Rock and Roll Means Well
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Yo,

Concerning the presidential helicopter manufacturer, a team composed of Lockheed Martin, AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter Textron won the contract in 2005. Because of about 2000 changes the contract is on hold. Please note that only AgustaWestland is a UK corporation, the other two partners are US companies.



How many people will this contract employ in the U.S.? How many in the Shoals might be impacted? Because I would like to spread the word and hopefully connect hurting people in the Shoals with a good manufacturing job.

I was under the impression that this fleet would be physically built in London and that is why the press made such a stink out of it.
Manufacturing jobs are not the only jobs being outsourced. Americans could definitely telemarket or provide technical support. And they would do a much better job considering the customers calling speak English. I hear so many people complain about not being able to speak to a real person or not being able to speak to an English-speaker.

Lots of other jobs are being outsourced and I think it is a real shame!

Corporations are big cheapos. They are unpatriotic. They prefer to hire foreign workers and CHILDREN to do jobs that Americans can and would do.

Obviously, American workers need a little more moolah to keep up with the cost of living. That is not unreasonable to ask of an employer.

And we continue to support them. And our administration continues to give them tax breaks.


"And He makes good money as long as Reynolds Wrap keeps everything wrapped up tight."~Drive-By Truckers
quote:


Regarding the AirBus tanker deal,

Boeing would have created 44,000 new jobs in the US.

Now the contract with EADS will only bring in 25,000 will be 25,000 to the US. Only 2,000 of those will be in Alabama, specific to Mobile.

And we can thank McCain for this one...
Well at least it was 2000 jobs in Alabama, as opposed to say ...N-O-N-E. I find it hard to believe there has been such an uproar here over this. Most fail to realize that there is also a company in Nashville (Grumman, I believe) who will also benefit from this contract. If John McCain is responsible for it, good for him. Personally, I don't think so, since the decision was made by the military and he is only a Senator (course you get started early blaming him for everything, like most have done for the past two administrations).
quote:
Originally posted by Yo estoy de Russellvilla:
quote:


Regarding the AirBus tanker deal,

Boeing would have created 44,000 new jobs in the US.

Now the contract with EADS will only bring in 25,000 will be 25,000 to the US. Only 2,000 of those will be in Alabama, specific to Mobile.

And we can thank McCain for this one...


So, according to the cited article, Boeing broke federal acquisitions law and got caught. Darlene Druyun was caught and sent to prison. McCain was involved in identifying an illegal activity, and now Boeing is having a cow on this one.

This acquisition was run by the Air Force without McCain being anywhere near the source selection team. Northrop's design most closely met what the Air Force believes it needs in its tanker fleet in the coming decades, and Boeing blames McCain for being involved in their last scandal which perhaps somehow tainted this one. Northrop will do the final assembly of the aircraft in Mobile, and virtually none of Boeing's jobs would have gone to Alabama.

What do we thank McCain for...protecting the Government from a biased contracting action? I can't see the bad in that...
Health Care is a right, not a privilege


by US Yankee



The health insurance picture is actually worse than it appears. Millions may not have health insurance, but the picture is distorted: Many more millions that have it cannot use it because they cannot afford it! Workers are paying more and more for health insurance, higher and higher deductibles and getting less and less coverage. Yet pay is not increasing with the cost of living.

Workers in much of the South fare worse than the North. Health insurance costs more yet the pay rate is a lot less, with a much higher percentage of their pay going to health insurance.

I now make $13,000 less a year in the South, yet my cost of living has stayed the same and in some cases higher -- with my health insurance twice as high, yet my pay twice as low.


My work friend and I are nurses and have worked in long-term care for almost 2 decades. We see elderly patients in their 80's and 90's who have labs after labs ordered, X-rays, MRIs, colonoscopies and many other tests done. The patients with the most tests? Those who have private insurance!

We both pay taxes for these tests to be done yet we cannot even afford to go to the doctor ourselves, with health problems serious enough to eventually prevent us from working.

People who work should have health insurance that they can afford; If workers are forced to abuse or neglect their health, they will no longer be able to work, nor pay for the health care of others. There is an old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Yet we will not be able to go unless our health problems become dire emergencies, and it could be too late.

That just isn't right.

Health care should be a right for all Americans, not just for the really old, or the really rich.





http://www.workingamerica.org/healthcarehustle/story.cf...detail&story_id=7263
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
Health Care is a right, not a privilege


by US Yankee



The health insurance picture is actually worse than it appears. Millions may not have health insurance, but the picture is distorted: Many more millions that have it cannot use it because they cannot afford it! Workers are paying more and more for health insurance, higher and higher deductibles and getting less and less coverage. Yet pay is not increasing with the cost of living.

Workers in much of the South fare worse than the North. Health insurance costs more yet the pay rate is a lot less, with a much higher percentage of their pay going to health insurance.

I now make $13,000 less a year in the South, yet my cost of living has stayed the same and in some cases higher -- with my health insurance twice as high, yet my pay twice as low.


My work friend and I are nurses and have worked in long-term care for almost 2 decades. We see elderly patients in their 80's and 90's who have labs after labs ordered, X-rays, MRIs, colonoscopies and many other tests done. The patients with the most tests? Those who have private insurance!

We both pay taxes for these tests to be done yet we cannot even afford to go to the doctor ourselves, with health problems serious enough to eventually prevent us from working.

People who work should have health insurance that they can afford; If workers are forced to abuse or neglect their health, they will no longer be able to work, nor pay for the health care of others. There is an old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Yet we will not be able to go unless our health problems become dire emergencies, and it could be too late.

That just isn't right.

Health care should be a right for all Americans, not just for the really old, or the really rich.





http://www.workingamerica.org/healthcarehustle/story.cf...detail&story_id=7263


A liberal government might eventually decree health care a "right", although that will break the country financially and cause the health care system to fall into shambles.

But as of this moment, and up until now, there is no right to health care.
Regardless of whether it is a right or not, I think we all can agree that we cannot afford for costs to keep rising and rising.

There should be some limitations set. Average Americans can't afford premiums. Eventually employers will stop carrying insurance. It's too expensive! I wanted to pick my husband up on my insurance but it would cost an additional $400.00 a month ON TOP of what the employer would pay. We're screwed!!!!

He is working 2 jobs at 2 different companies and we are praying one of them opens up a full time spot for him in the next few weeks so he can start getting benefits.

Until then, I just hope and pray everyday that he is not in a terrible accident. We have car and renter's insurance, but we can't afford the additional spike for healthcare. We would have to decide between rent or healthcare. And we do need shelter first.
I will absolutely agree about the cost of health care and health care insurance. First, health care insurers are in the business to make a profit, which results in higher costs. But the real villains in the rising health care cost problem are NOT Bush, the War in Iraq, space exploration, or other government programs. Instead, look toward lawyers who have raised malpractice suits to an art form. Also, you can cast a bit of blame toward illegal immigrants. Even 20 or 30 years ago, people from South America would fly into Miami and check into hospitals for expensive treatments. Then they'd leave, and stick the hospital with the cost. As health care costs have been spiraling for years, it's disingenuous to blame GWB for this problem.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
I will absolutely agree about the cost of health care and health care insurance. First, health care insurers are in the business to make a profit, which results in higher costs. But the real villains in the rising health care cost problem are NOT Bush, the War in Iraq, space exploration, or other government programs. Instead, look toward lawyers who have raised malpractice suits to an art form. Also, you can cast a bit of blame toward illegal immigrants. Even 20 or 30 years ago, people from South America would fly into Miami and check into hospitals for expensive treatments. Then they'd leave, and stick the hospital with the cost. As health care costs have been spiraling for years, it's disingenuous to blame GWB for this problem.


He's had a good 7.5 years and hasn't done a d*** thing to help.
The healthcare crisis did not occur in this administration either. It has been forecast for many years, and the last Democrat in office did nothing either, except let his wife come up with a hair brained plan that would not have done anything to offset costs. Health coverage may not be a "right", but no one, and I mean no one, that shows up in an emergency at a community hospital is turned down for care. Let me clarify that, in an emergency. Are there those who do not get treated as they wish to be treated? Absolutely. I have insurance and I sometimes do not get fair treatment either. My insurance is not cheap, it costs me about $1000 a month for family coverage and then my son's medication. But major medical insurance is not that expensive. What most people want is to be treated with no out of pocket expense and that is never going to happen, I don't care if the government does take over healthcare. There has to be an aspect of repsonsibility in healthcare as well. Those who do not smoke are obivously less likely to suffer from lung cancer and respiratory problems, therefore should they be put in the same umbrella as those who do? Those who do not exercise nor try to control their weight are obviously more prone to develop diabetes or hypertension. Should they also be forced to supplement those who take no responsibility for their actions.
Most people do not want to hear that they themselves are sometimes their own worst enemy, and can have more to do with their health than they realize. Of course there are always accidents and cancers, and sometimes inherited diseases that affect some poor unfortunate soul, but major medical insurance can help those.
I have a friend who has no health insurance, says it is too expensive, yet he owns a Harley which he rides all the time, and a bass boat from which he fishes the river. How much sympathy do you have for those who choose not to put their priorities in order. Should it be the right of every individual to own a 22 foot bass boat? a decked out Harley? a sports car? but then not to look at their future and worry about their livelihood should they be stricken with illness?

Obama and Hillary's health care plan advocates taking more money from one sector (namely the middle class) of society and providing a watered down insurance plan that will not provide basic services for those most in need. It will challenge hospitals and physicians to delve out care as the government sees fit, not according to the assessment of the situation. There are horror stories everyday of some medical misadventure, but people in the US live longer than they have ever lived and cancer death rates have gone down. Drug use continues to rise, as does alcoholism, and we see more and more cases of people's lifestyle choices determining how they will live the rest of their lives.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×