Should we have Govt. Run Health Care
Do you guys like the idea of the govt. having complete control over our health care?
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 5,820
RATE
12
Posted: 2009-10-10 09:30:11
Psst.
Responses (120) / Sorted by points
Yes! We should have Government ran health care. That way the current insurance companies tank, we lose more jobs, there is less cash flow in the economy, and we finally become another failing Socialistic Nation! Yea, that is what I am looking forward too. [/sarcasm] Kradon, you said "Everyone has equal health care and no one can complain" did you know that there will still be people with better heath care. You know who those people are? The government. They devised a plan so that "if you like your current health plan you can keep it" Why is that do you think? It is because the Government Health care is going to be so damn shitty no one will want to be on it, not even the people that voted for it. I think people should really start doing research before releasing their hot air.
I honestly believe that having one health care system that everyone is apart of would be alot better than having all of these private insurance companies squabble amongst eachother. Everyone has equal health care and no one can complain. Plain and simple.
WOW!!! ETROV WAS WRONG. We do agree on something logo. I think that the United States of America is kind of a mix between capitalism and socialism.
ex. In true capitalism the govt would have no influence at all on businesses. Our govt does have influence such as regulations on safety just to begin on how deep our govt regulations reach into our economy.
ex. In true capitalism the govt would have no influence at all on businesses. Our govt does have influence such as regulations on safety just to begin on how deep our govt regulations reach into our economy.
Don't worry about it. I think that you have your own views that I may or may not disagree with but you still just want what is best for us. You too Logo. You are probably the only person I know who I disagree on so many topics with but I like. I think both of you are great people.
Posted: 2009-12-29 18:04:47 Report
I enjoy these discussions, and harbor no bad personal feelings.
Sorry for the slight attack below Ertrov, I just often find it hard to be told I don't care about the same human race that contains my loved ones. I am sure it was just a simple misunderstanding though, and I don't think this is the place to bring up evolution. If you wish to do so, I'd be happy to go again in one of the old threads, just let me know : P.
Off to bed! I am tired.
Sorry for the slight attack below Ertrov, I just often find it hard to be told I don't care about the same human race that contains my loved ones. I am sure it was just a simple misunderstanding though, and I don't think this is the place to bring up evolution. If you wish to do so, I'd be happy to go again in one of the old threads, just let me know : P.
Off to bed! I am tired.
Posted: 2009-12-30 22:08:38 Report
@ Etrov, what's price got to do with anything? If this is going to be anything like the NHS then it'll be free. Obviously the money comes from taxes but it wont be any kind of major hike. Only selfish people who have plenty of money and nothing to lose are bitching about this. It's a good idea for the benefit of all you Americans.
This should be on the front page of every newspaper in America —in large bold letters. This was a "letter to the editor" in August 29th Jackson , MS newspaper.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.
And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture — a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.
Don't you agree?
STARNER JONES, MD
Jackson , MS
AMEN!!!!!!!! I see a very similar thing at my job. I work at a grocery store and all the time I see people come in and pay for their food with a foodstamps card. The crazy part is that about 90% of them buy all junk food like soda, chips, snack cakes, ice cream, and even candy bars. First if all when the tax-payers are paying for your dinner you should only be able to get the bare minimum This is crazy. And most of the time this person is eating better than I do and they have nicer clothes, cell phones, and cars. This is more proff that govt. Can't handle our money.
For those of you who think socialism is a good idea...
To Captincrunk:
I don't have a fancy video rebuttal, but I do have a few points to make : ):
1.) According to Snopes that never actually happened : P.
www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
2.) We have no documented examples of this occurring in the real world. The video proposes a hypothesis about human nature. That, in a society, people would care so little about their own survival and loved ones that they would refuse to work and succeed. I don't know about you, but in the event that a B average was received on the first test, I would study extremely hard to try and help out all of my friends and myself. And I know almost all of those in my classes would do the same. Obviously I can't speak for those I don't know, but from my experience, the example above is simply not practically applicable.
3.) To equate grade distribution with wealth distribution is almost correct... however, it ignores a very large difference: the difference in base motivation. A student's life is not effected very much by a single low grade. So, the choice is between a high grade and a low grade, and that is ultimately not exactly a big difference in the grand scheme of things. However, in the real world, the choice to work or not is between survival and economic/financial collapse, and the stakes are much, much higher.
Essentially, this video is conjecture and nothing more: conjecture I strongly disagree with.
I don't have a fancy video rebuttal, but I do have a few points to make : ):
1.) According to Snopes that never actually happened : P.
www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
2.) We have no documented examples of this occurring in the real world. The video proposes a hypothesis about human nature. That, in a society, people would care so little about their own survival and loved ones that they would refuse to work and succeed. I don't know about you, but in the event that a B average was received on the first test, I would study extremely hard to try and help out all of my friends and myself. And I know almost all of those in my classes would do the same. Obviously I can't speak for those I don't know, but from my experience, the example above is simply not practically applicable.
3.) To equate grade distribution with wealth distribution is almost correct... however, it ignores a very large difference: the difference in base motivation. A student's life is not effected very much by a single low grade. So, the choice is between a high grade and a low grade, and that is ultimately not exactly a big difference in the grand scheme of things. However, in the real world, the choice to work or not is between survival and economic/financial collapse, and the stakes are much, much higher.
Essentially, this video is conjecture and nothing more: conjecture I strongly disagree with.
The problem is these people don't have to die. Most of them are perfectly capable of making enough money to pay for health care if they work really hard. Look at Bill Gates. He earned his money. He worked, and poured his life into his work and look where he ended up. America is a land of opportunity, but people are too lazy to, because of American culture. And I for one think it's ridiculous that we should do something for people who refuse to do it themselves.
Let me give you an example. You have a friend who mooches off you. They keep asking for money. You say no, and they say they hate their life and try to kill themselves. Do you keep giving them money to "save" them, or do you get them help from a counselor? Obviously the latter. Therefore, we shouldn't just give them more money, we should help them get a job.
Yeah, that is very true. But can you honestly say Capitalism has eliminated American laziness? People in Sweden (Almost total socialism) are working well and hard, whereas people in America (capitalism and socialism mix) are very lazy overall...
I think it's more complicated than socialism=laziness, but I think the simplest idea ever is that saving lives=an honorable pursuit.
I think it's more complicated than socialism=laziness, but I think the simplest idea ever is that saving lives=an honorable pursuit.
This is a very cruel way to look at it but if a person wants to be lazy maybe they should live in poverty. Now before any of you freaks out on me about that being cruel to their children but that is only another reason why we should limit who can have kids. Hey...another new post idea!
I do believe if they don't want to earn wealth, they shouldn't get it, but I disagree with forcing them not to have children. I say this because any child, regardless of upbringing, can work to get wealthy, so their kids have every opportunity. Also, if you force them not to have kids, the ones that get pregnant will get abortions to avoid breaking the law. And abortion is murder. (another post idea: abortion)
Oo, let's do the abortion one. Someone start a thread? : P.
And ignoring that for now, I essentially support the general socialist ideal over the capitalist idea because of the base principles of each system.
"Capitalism" is about capital, the financial health of a community and the respect of the class system.
"Socialism" is about social goals, the social health of a community and the equalizing of the class system.
I'm a liberal idealist who chases equality far past the realm of practicality. Which is why I love socialism: the journey for equality. : D
And ignoring that for now, I essentially support the general socialist ideal over the capitalist idea because of the base principles of each system.
"Capitalism" is about capital, the financial health of a community and the respect of the class system.
"Socialism" is about social goals, the social health of a community and the equalizing of the class system.
I'm a liberal idealist who chases equality far past the realm of practicality. Which is why I love socialism: the journey for equality. : D
Posted: 2009-12-30 22:12:04 Report
YES! And no, don't look at Cash For Clunkers, a program that was specifically for stimulus and environmental improvement that was never expected to be self-sustaining. Look at:
The Fire Department, as well as other agencies, and especially look at:
VA Health Care, extremely good.
Medicare, doing just fine.
Sweden, ROCKING it! : ).
Taking greed out of health care is the way to go in my opinion. For people, not profit.
The Fire Department, as well as other agencies, and especially look at:
VA Health Care, extremely good.
Medicare, doing just fine.
Sweden, ROCKING it! : ).
Taking greed out of health care is the way to go in my opinion. For people, not profit.
I'm not sure Ertrov, haha.
And Social Security provides:
Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Unemployment benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
What's so bad about it?
(And I still would believe that Gov. Healthcare systems are the best comparison to use when discussing a possible Gov. Healthcare system... but that's just me?)
And Social Security provides:
Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Unemployment benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
What's so bad about it?
(And I still would believe that Gov. Healthcare systems are the best comparison to use when discussing a possible Gov. Healthcare system... but that's just me?)
That is a simply incorrect statement. We are ranked 37th by the WHO (World Health Organization). Although these rankings are old, we have had exactly 0 health reform since then, so if anything we have dropped lower...
We are sitting just behind Costa Rica. www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
First is in fact France : ). With Public Health Insurance. : ).
We are sitting just behind Costa Rica. www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
First is in fact France : ). With Public Health Insurance. : ).
Thank you both for that admission, and really, that is perfectly fine. I just request that in the future you do not profess to read the article when you have not. Just wait a little while: sharenator will still be here when you have taken the time to rest : ).
The rankings rely on five factors:
Responsiveness
Fairness of financial contribution
Overall level of health
Distribution of health in the populations
Distribution of financing
That help?
The rankings rely on five factors:
Responsiveness
Fairness of financial contribution
Overall level of health
Distribution of health in the populations
Distribution of financing
That help?
For those that are complaining about the fact that people who can't afford health care are simply going to die I have something to say. Have you ever heard of the salvation army or any other charitable orginization. Well here's an idea if you can't afford to take little Johnny to the doctor you might say " O, pardon me but may I tap into the funds our careing community has set up for me in these type of situations?". Yeah that wouldn't work. JK. I mean what the hell only a very few people in the U.S. dont have healthcare and the people that don't have one of these three reasons.
1. They say " Well my immune system is a tank i dont need any healthcare". this is fine because we live in the Fucking USA. Do you know what that means? it means we have to make our own choices once in a while.
2. They can't afford it. (which is the only people we should help pay for.
3. They're illeagel!!!!!!!! Most of the "Americans" that don't have insurance aren't supposed to be here in the first place.
Anything to say?
1. They say " Well my immune system is a tank i dont need any healthcare". this is fine because we live in the Fucking USA. Do you know what that means? it means we have to make our own choices once in a while.
2. They can't afford it. (which is the only people we should help pay for.
3. They're illeagel!!!!!!!! Most of the "Americans" that don't have insurance aren't supposed to be here in the first place.
Anything to say?
A lot to say in fact : ).
The amount of charitable organizations currently active dealing with health care situations can't even come close to covering the cost of the impoverished. Also, these charitable organizations rely on direct donation, then distribute that money out to the poor. How is this different from allotting your personal money to the government, through taxes, who then distribute some of it to pay for health care? You can't really advocate one and not the other.
Very few don't have health insurance? That's preposterous. In fact, 45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of coverage. This figure is horrifying.
www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-
study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverag
e
1.) I don't support giving people who can afford health care but choose not to purchase it health care. When they want health care, they should get it, I don't intend to infringe upon their freedoms.
2.) This is extremely common. A third of Americans (86.7 million people) went uninsured for some of or all of the past 2 years. Because they could not afford it.
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5233QM20090304
3.) I am still undecided as to how to deal with illegal immigrants and health care. However, I don't think they deserve a de facto death sentence just because they don't have the right signed paper. But, let's not debate this last point, because I am really on the fence (haha) about it. Thanks.
The amount of charitable organizations currently active dealing with health care situations can't even come close to covering the cost of the impoverished. Also, these charitable organizations rely on direct donation, then distribute that money out to the poor. How is this different from allotting your personal money to the government, through taxes, who then distribute some of it to pay for health care? You can't really advocate one and not the other.
Very few don't have health insurance? That's preposterous. In fact, 45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of coverage. This figure is horrifying.
www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-
study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverag
e
1.) I don't support giving people who can afford health care but choose not to purchase it health care. When they want health care, they should get it, I don't intend to infringe upon their freedoms.
2.) This is extremely common. A third of Americans (86.7 million people) went uninsured for some of or all of the past 2 years. Because they could not afford it.
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5233QM20090304
3.) I am still undecided as to how to deal with illegal immigrants and health care. However, I don't think they deserve a de facto death sentence just because they don't have the right signed paper. But, let's not debate this last point, because I am really on the fence (haha) about it. Thanks.
Wow! They look British with those teeth.
Watch the movie "Sicko", then decide when you see how nationalized health care should be done. And yes, I am in favor for it.
I do not base my choice just on the movie, but rather my beleif that the current sysytem is broken and needs to be fixed (if you want to debate that fact, go ahead, make yourself look like a dumbass)
I do not base my choice just on the movie, but rather my beleif that the current sysytem is broken and needs to be fixed (if you want to debate that fact, go ahead, make yourself look like a dumbass)
No one ever said we have a good system right now, we don't. But this won't improve it. You know why? The same reason there are so many lazy bums mooching off welfare. If you give someone something because they're disabled, someone else will pretend to be disabled so they can have it too. (if you want to debate that fact, go ahead, make yourself look like a dumbass)
First of all, the person who in another argument says our existence is an accident and we just came from monkeys says to "have faith in humanity" when all evidence shows that while some people behave civilly, many don't? We never said it was good, just better than a lot of others.
I never said our existence was/is an accident. I am 100% positive of that. And we did not come from monkeys, our closest cousin would be the Chimpanzee... How do either of these things demean human life anyway? It changes nothing.
Let me quote:
Jofus: "We still have the best health care in the world."
Ertrov: "Yeah."
I'm getting tired of you, Ertrov, using strawmans to misrepresent my position, attacking me and my worldviews personally, then dismissing my arguments without addressing them or reading the sources I provide. Soon I will have to cease discussion with you, for it is proving fairly fruitless and frustrating.
Jofus, I have absolutely no issue with you, as you take what I say into consideration, concede points when necessary, do not when it is not necessary, and are a generally well-meaning person. Let us continue the discussion : ). Thanks for being on point.
True, Canada doesn't have a fantastic health care system, and you are right to point it out. Kudos. However, they have a very rudimentary form of standardized health care, one I would not support being implemented in the US. They spend only 10% of the National GDP on health care, which I do not agree with. In 2006, 46% of the US health care was government funded, whereas 70% of Canadian health care was. However, the total US spending was more than double the Candian's on health care in total. All I propose is that we bump up government health care to 100% instead of 46%, and still spend the same amount. This doesn't change much except that everyone receives care.
Let me quote:
Jofus: "We still have the best health care in the world."
Ertrov: "Yeah."
I'm getting tired of you, Ertrov, using strawmans to misrepresent my position, attacking me and my worldviews personally, then dismissing my arguments without addressing them or reading the sources I provide. Soon I will have to cease discussion with you, for it is proving fairly fruitless and frustrating.
Jofus, I have absolutely no issue with you, as you take what I say into consideration, concede points when necessary, do not when it is not necessary, and are a generally well-meaning person. Let us continue the discussion : ). Thanks for being on point.
True, Canada doesn't have a fantastic health care system, and you are right to point it out. Kudos. However, they have a very rudimentary form of standardized health care, one I would not support being implemented in the US. They spend only 10% of the National GDP on health care, which I do not agree with. In 2006, 46% of the US health care was government funded, whereas 70% of Canadian health care was. However, the total US spending was more than double the Candian's on health care in total. All I propose is that we bump up government health care to 100% instead of 46%, and still spend the same amount. This doesn't change much except that everyone receives care.
1. You have said in many ways that you don't believe in God, so I took the liberty of assuming you believed in evolution. If that was incorrect, I apologize.
2. I'm sorry for naming the wrong type of primate, but I don't see how that changes my point.
3. It would demean it because that means we are just animals, who at base level care only for our own survival.
4. I know that's what I said, and again, there is a difference between being good, and just being the best of a group of bad choices.
5. I did not attack you or use your views as a strawman. If it seemed that way, I apologize. I was merely pointing out that this philosophy might have contradicted with the way you normally debate.
6. I have addressed them, and I do read whatever material I have time to. The fact that I still disagree does not mean I ignored your evidence.
2. I'm sorry for naming the wrong type of primate, but I don't see how that changes my point.
3. It would demean it because that means we are just animals, who at base level care only for our own survival.
4. I know that's what I said, and again, there is a difference between being good, and just being the best of a group of bad choices.
5. I did not attack you or use your views as a strawman. If it seemed that way, I apologize. I was merely pointing out that this philosophy might have contradicted with the way you normally debate.
6. I have addressed them, and I do read whatever material I have time to. The fact that I still disagree does not mean I ignored your evidence.
1.) You know very well I believe in evolution, we have had that debate extensively. However, you seemed to have gleaned nothing from former discussion.
2.) It show that you haven't done further research since our last evolutionary discussion.
3.) We ARE just animals, through pure taxonomic classification (done originally, in fact, by a biblical literalist). That doesn't make us any less human.
4.) I see what you are saying, but the second part is still factually incorrect.
5.) Nothing in my worldview before in our discussions has dwelled on my feelings toward the human race... I simply spout hard fact when speaking of scientific principle. In this area of health care and economics, however, I serve out my belief. There is no contradiction, and to say a belief in evolution causes a carelessness for human life is to completely misunderstand the human peoples and the scientific principle.
6.) Yes, the fact that you still disagree has nothing whatsoever to say about whether or not evidence is ignored. If, however, the same simple tag line is reiterated time and time again without change to accommodate evidentiary sources, that in fact does give a clue that you ignore my queries and propositions.
2.) It show that you haven't done further research since our last evolutionary discussion.
3.) We ARE just animals, through pure taxonomic classification (done originally, in fact, by a biblical literalist). That doesn't make us any less human.
4.) I see what you are saying, but the second part is still factually incorrect.
5.) Nothing in my worldview before in our discussions has dwelled on my feelings toward the human race... I simply spout hard fact when speaking of scientific principle. In this area of health care and economics, however, I serve out my belief. There is no contradiction, and to say a belief in evolution causes a carelessness for human life is to completely misunderstand the human peoples and the scientific principle.
6.) Yes, the fact that you still disagree has nothing whatsoever to say about whether or not evidence is ignored. If, however, the same simple tag line is reiterated time and time again without change to accommodate evidentiary sources, that in fact does give a clue that you ignore my queries and propositions.
Also where does it say on our bill of rights that you have the right to have equal health care? Standardized health care will only lead to standardized other things. If things like health care are standardized by the govt what would stop them from standardizing salaries next. If people know that they do not have to work hard for things they want what is to stop them from being a slacker.
For example, a group of people are waiters and waitresses at a resturant. At this establishment all of them do not keep their own tips. They have to put all of their tips into a pool, which at the end of the day is divided evenly between all of them. But one of he waiters decides that he doesn't want to work hard and go out of his way to be nice to customers. That day he only recieves $25 in tips but another waiter made $60 in tips. Why should they both make the same amount of money? That sounds very unfair to me. The waiter who made $25 dollars in tips will have no motivation to improve his work and will continue to do the bare minimum. But if they didn't have to put their tips into a pool the bad waiter would have motivation to be a good employee.
For example, a group of people are waiters and waitresses at a resturant. At this establishment all of them do not keep their own tips. They have to put all of their tips into a pool, which at the end of the day is divided evenly between all of them. But one of he waiters decides that he doesn't want to work hard and go out of his way to be nice to customers. That day he only recieves $25 in tips but another waiter made $60 in tips. Why should they both make the same amount of money? That sounds very unfair to me. The waiter who made $25 dollars in tips will have no motivation to improve his work and will continue to do the bare minimum. But if they didn't have to put their tips into a pool the bad waiter would have motivation to be a good employee.
I think we can all agree that the Bill of Rights does not include the right to Health Care.
It also doesn't include the right for black people to vote, it doesn't include abolishment of slavery, and it doesn't include any Disability laws. I think we can add things to the Constitution just fine, even though we are past the Bill of Rights ; ).
I see your scenario. However, you treat it in the wrong way: ignoring the true nature of competition. The same restaurant, one waiter makes $60, one makes 25$ in tips. They both put the tips into the pool. Now, from there, their boss takes all of that money, because he's the supervisor and thinks he deserves a higher salary. From that, his boss takes that money, then the boss above that, etc, etc, considering that the money has a snowballing effect as it reaches the top.
Thus, all of that money goes to the executive of the Restaurant chain, and none goes to either server.
This is what we see today, 95%+ of America's total wealth in the hands of less than 5% of the population. Talk about a rich poor gap.
Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is perfect... but Socialism is at least humane.
And we should stop that thread of conversation, because we aren't talking about base economic systems, simply preventing American deaths where we can (by employing health care).
It also doesn't include the right for black people to vote, it doesn't include abolishment of slavery, and it doesn't include any Disability laws. I think we can add things to the Constitution just fine, even though we are past the Bill of Rights ; ).
I see your scenario. However, you treat it in the wrong way: ignoring the true nature of competition. The same restaurant, one waiter makes $60, one makes 25$ in tips. They both put the tips into the pool. Now, from there, their boss takes all of that money, because he's the supervisor and thinks he deserves a higher salary. From that, his boss takes that money, then the boss above that, etc, etc, considering that the money has a snowballing effect as it reaches the top.
Thus, all of that money goes to the executive of the Restaurant chain, and none goes to either server.
This is what we see today, 95%+ of America's total wealth in the hands of less than 5% of the population. Talk about a rich poor gap.
Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is perfect... but Socialism is at least humane.
And we should stop that thread of conversation, because we aren't talking about base economic systems, simply preventing American deaths where we can (by employing health care).
You make a good point and I thank you for that but I was slightly unclear. I was refering to more of a small family owned resturant. I know of a place where pooling the money is not controlled by the manager or owner. It is just handled by the waiters and waitresses at the end if the work day. But I just do not think that people have the right to things like health care. People should have to work their ass of so that they can afford the nice health care they want. Also like I've said earlier I just don't trust the govt with my money.
Do people have the right to the Fire Department?
The FDA?
NASA?
USDA?
FCC?
Whether or not things are a "right," we still have them, and they are still extremely beneficial to the American people. Simply because we don't have to pay for the Fire Department doesn't make them any worse, or Americans any less American for utilizing the system.
I realize you were, but either way, the ultimate output of Capitalism is greed.
The FDA?
NASA?
USDA?
FCC?
Whether or not things are a "right," we still have them, and they are still extremely beneficial to the American people. Simply because we don't have to pay for the Fire Department doesn't make them any worse, or Americans any less American for utilizing the system.
I realize you were, but either way, the ultimate output of Capitalism is greed.
The very concept of equality doesn't work in reality. (note that I mean economic equality, I am not racist or sexist) There have to be levels of wealth for the system to work. This is just reality, I am not some sort of sadist who enjoys people being in poverty. I hate it as much as anyone, but until there is a totally different economic system, this is the way it is.
Yes, until there is a completely different economic system. I.e., a complete overhaul away from the pseudo-capitalistic plutocracy in force now.
Which is what I support, because I think equality, no matter how lofty a goal, should always be something to strive for.
Which is what I support, because I think equality, no matter how lofty a goal, should always be something to strive for.
And I would generally disagree. The very fact that society exists shows that human beings have a natural inclination for at least some kind of "teamwork."
And the problem with your argument there is that Capitalism has the exact same failing. Without the economic higher-ups injecting money into the economy (creating a system with fair pay, many jobs, cheap products, and not pocketing all of the money for themselves), a.k.a., working for America and not themselves, you arrive at a similarly faulty system.
If both systems have the same problem (relying too much on human decency) why not choose the one that's an equalizer, instead of the one thats a divisor?
And the problem with your argument there is that Capitalism has the exact same failing. Without the economic higher-ups injecting money into the economy (creating a system with fair pay, many jobs, cheap products, and not pocketing all of the money for themselves), a.k.a., working for America and not themselves, you arrive at a similarly faulty system.
If both systems have the same problem (relying too much on human decency) why not choose the one that's an equalizer, instead of the one thats a divisor?
i say nay cuz look at englands waiting period for medical stuff your dead before you reach the door and watching fox and cnn we are goin to have to pay 4 years ahead of time.
I don't care if living in France could make me live forever. They are a bunch of wimps. I don't feel like looking this up but didn't it only take about 2 weeks for the Nazis to overtake them in WW2? That is horrible. Also did you know that in France it is against the law for a person to work more than 35 hours a week? That restrains how much money you make.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/.../main682341.shtml
Please tell me if it doesn't work. But try to Google it first.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/.../main682341.shtml
Please tell me if it doesn't work. But try to Google it first.
WE do have government run healthcare... Jealous? haha
I'm from britain and i really don't care what you lot think our health care is pretty good, and i've been to america so i know both of them. This healthcare scheme is to help you out, i don't see how any of you can be against that. I'm assuming that all of you who are saying it's an awful idea are people who have healthcare already in place? what about all the people who just can't afford it? Are they supposed to just suffer? What about medicine? Here all prescribed medicine costs £7.20 (about $12) no matter what it is, this is of course assuming you're not eligible for free medicine which alot of people are. I really cannot for the life of me understand any single person who is against everyone getting healthcare. Explain for me, please.
Look people who can afford health care, aren't out of luck there is welfare and they could work more. Besides chances are that those who can't afford made a bad decision somewhere in their lives, wether it be drugs or dropping out of high school. Most jobs that require at least a high school diploma will provide health insurance and if you don't have a diploma you can get one, it is simply no my problem.
1.) I think you mean "can't."
2.) Welfare has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with base living costs. Receiving enough welfare to pay for treatment is preposterous.
3.) I think saying that every single person who can't afford health care made a bad decision is a gross oversimplification at best. Plenty of good people can't afford health insurance:
the statistic showing that 1 in 7-1 in 6 Americans go without health insurance. Do you really think that many people are worth left for dead?
4.) Many jobs don't provide adequate health care employees.
I'm sorry to say this, but your position seems at least somewhat uninformed, and you seem to not care about your fellow Americans' well-being. I find this frankly appalling... thinking that before you go touting ideals you should check the available facts and figures to see if your statements are accurate. Every day without public health care, more people die that could be saved. I just wish those deaths would cease.
2.) Welfare has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with base living costs. Receiving enough welfare to pay for treatment is preposterous.
3.) I think saying that every single person who can't afford health care made a bad decision is a gross oversimplification at best. Plenty of good people can't afford health insurance:
the statistic showing that 1 in 7-1 in 6 Americans go without health insurance. Do you really think that many people are worth left for dead?
4.) Many jobs don't provide adequate health care employees.
I'm sorry to say this, but your position seems at least somewhat uninformed, and you seem to not care about your fellow Americans' well-being. I find this frankly appalling... thinking that before you go touting ideals you should check the available facts and figures to see if your statements are accurate. Every day without public health care, more people die that could be saved. I just wish those deaths would cease.
so your saying jobs should be required to provide health insurance? From what I can tell the Health Care Bill isn't going to pass. Thank the Lord!!!!!(Sorry Logo)
Should employers be required to provide all employees with health insurance? I think not. If a business owner has to pay for health insurance for every employee he will have to lay off some employees because it will cost him more money to run his/her company but will not be making any more money. Also that would lower production.
Should employers be required to provide all employees with health insurance? I think not. If a business owner has to pay for health insurance for every employee he will have to lay off some employees because it will cost him more money to run his/her company but will not be making any more money. Also that would lower production.
Excuse me, I meant "health care for employees," but I think you got that? Anywho:
No, I in no way think that employees should get health care by default. It's nice when that is true, but I think a base health care (universal) should exist for all members of this society. Simple recognition of the need of care for life to exist. My comment was in response to lingauno, saying that most jobs provide health insurance.
Like I said, I was not saying that. Just responding to an incorrect statement.
No, I in no way think that employees should get health care by default. It's nice when that is true, but I think a base health care (universal) should exist for all members of this society. Simple recognition of the need of care for life to exist. My comment was in response to lingauno, saying that most jobs provide health insurance.
Like I said, I was not saying that. Just responding to an incorrect statement.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
Post a response
Related posts
