Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[Cecilie1200]

Hmmm. So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating issues. Conservative, right? You made a comment earleir about "all those people dying waiting for healthcare in those danm socialist countries" and other such nonsense. So a simple question:
How many of those countries have you lived in and received healthcare in?

I mean, I've seen your posts regarding the MSM so surely you're not foolish enough to believe all this BS just because the MSM tells you it's true, right? So which country or countries have you received this horrible health care in?

Riiiight. The rest of the world is a socialist paradise, and we're just being lied to by the mainstream media, which of course is always trying SO HARD to promote the wonders of the United States.

Before you run off thinking you get to fire off questions and demands, dumbass, how about you try to see past your kindergarten tattling mode to the actual point of my post (I know, that requires a lot more reading comprehension than your kind usually produces)?
So basically, all this did and said nothing - just a reflection of you're uh, "personality". Hmmm. Weren't exactly captain of your debate team were you?

I'll spell it out for you, out of the goodness of my heart:

Your first actual point. Let's call it "1". competition controls the prices in most industries, including health care of the non-essential kind, so why would anyone with a teaspoon of brains assume that it wouldn't have the same effect on more essential healthcare?

Let me know if you or your sniveling little compatriot ever get the stones to actually address the topic. I won't hold my breath. More of your "personality". Dale Carnegie graduate, were you?

Once you do, maybe I'll grant you the respect needed to let you ask me questions. Until then, "Must be conservative", huh? So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating the issues. If you can't be bothered to see the rest of the post, I see no reason why I should, hypocrite.

Wow. You're quite the angry little thing, aren't you? Obviously the answer to my question is that you have never lived in a country with universal health care - which is why you dodge it and stomp your little feeties etc...

So fine. I'd be happy to show how issues / questions are addressed directly. Then you will have something to aspire to!

Yes little angry person, competition can help pricing and service. In the USA, it does not do a sufficient job though. If it did, everyone would be able to afford basic health care and no one would file bankruptcy due to medical bills.
You rant all that time for one point (which has obviously been spoon-fed to you): The only way to provide any product or service is through competition.
This kind of dichotomous (ask a Liberal to explain that word to you) thinking is common among the ignorant and unsophisticated.
You're simply wrong.
There are many products and services that are delivered by the government without ANY competition. One of the best examples is libraries. They provide both a service and a product. They compete directly with book stores. They enable those who could not otherwise afford books (or prefer to simply get them for free) to enjoy reading. Did libraries put bookstores out of business? Nope. There is room for both. Are you against libraries? Do you consider libraries "Socialist"? No, of course not. Those who feed you your opinions, haven't told you to feel negatively about libraries.
But you have told to believe that the government providing health care must be bad. So you believe it. They prey upon your basic socio-political leanings and convince you there is reason in this foolishness. Oh well. Life in America, eh?
Allow me to educate you: Using tax dollars to provide for the welfare of our citizens doesn't make us a Socialist country. That too, is the product of ignorant and unsophisticated thinking. We have had social programs since before we were a country.
But it's okay. It's not like you think for yourself. If you did, I wouldn't be able to easily predict all of your opinions on over a dozen, unrelated political issues - which I can. Of course, you cannot do that with me because I think for myself.
So simply put. You're right in that competition can help pricing but you're wrong in that you think this is the only way in which pricing / service can be efficiently delivered. If you were right, there would be no Sherman Act.

What a lot of air to say nothing whatsoever. Call me when you can give me something other than campaign speeches about "If we want to be a wonderful country, we have to give away stuff" and conflating federal governments with state and local governments. This bilge wasn't even worth your worthless time to write, much less my valuable time to read.

"Libraries are great, so the federal government should pay for healthcare." I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... it's a right...

... cause it's right...

... fer it to be a right."

[/url]

As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.[/QUOTE]

I wish it was only in America that people are so gullible as to believe "It's important = the government should provide it". Sadly, idiots abound all over the world.

I'm just laughing my ass off at you and your empty, rah-rah rhetoric bitching about OTHER people's propaganda. If you ever had a solid argument in favor of this nonsense, I must have blinked and missed it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... it's a right...

... cause it's right...

... fer it to be a right."

[/url]

As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.

Do us all a favor, and prioritize the "BS programs" so we know the way. Tell us is everyone eligible for "free healthcare"? Who pays the nurses, the aides, the doctors, the hospitals, the medical centers? Do you think those people are just going to go to work every day without being paid, appropriately? Just "who" is going to "pay" for this "right"?[/QUOTE]

What, you mean, "It's IMPORTANT, and it should be a PRIORITY, people are DYING without it" doesn't clear all that up for you? I mean, that should settle the whole matter, shouldn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

As stated before, only in America are people so gullible that they can be led to believe the health & welfare of our citizens should not be prioritized over the hundreds of other BS programs paid for. Gotta love the insurance & medical lobbies. They do one helluva job of buying politicians and marketing propaganda.

Do us all a favor, and prioritize the "BS programs" so we know the way. Tell us is everyone eligible for "free healthcare"? Who pays the nurses, the aides, the doctors, the hospitals, the medical centers? Do you think those people are just going to go to work every day without being paid, appropriately? Just "who" is going to "pay" for this "right"?

Be happy to. We pay more than every other country in the world COMBINED on defense. You think we're so evil that's necessary? Or that out soldiers are so bad at their job? Nope. You've been sold on it.
How about the billions we just give away to the corrupt politicians of foreign countries? You prioritize THAT over making sure our vets get health & mental care?
But the idea of using tax dollars for the well-being of the citizenry extends only within the parameters you've been led to believe are "acceptable".
So your ignorance on this subject is understandable. You've been programmed to believe something by those who prey on certain metaprograms in your political and cultural ideology & preferences. You don't know any better than to believe the bs they feed you, you just do.
You believe you think for yourself and that it's a "coincidence" that I can tell you all your opinions on dozens of unrelated issues, with 90%+ accuracy but that you can't do this with me (it's that free & independent thinking thing). [/QUOTE]

There you go. The federal government should stop providing national defense - which it's required to do by the US Constitution - so that it can provide cradle-to-grave healthcare for everyone - which it's NOT required to do by the US Constitution (Not that anyone gives a shit about that worthless, dirty piece of sheepskin, right?).

'Nuff said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

healthcare should always be free, no one should suffer from their rights and worry about huge bills before they even step into the hospitals

There's no such thing as "free", Chuckles, no matter what your kindergarten teacher tells you. Someone's always paying, so while you're fapping to your soaring rhetoric about "no one should suffer", why don't you grow the fuck up and tell us who gets to foot the bill?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Riiiight. The rest of the world is a socialist paradise, and we're just being lied to by the mainstream media, which of course is always trying SO HARD to promote the wonders of the United States.

Before you run off thinking you get to fire off questions and demands, dumbass, how about you try to see past your kindergarten tattling mode to the actual point of my post (I know, that requires a lot more reading comprehension than your kind usually produces)?
So basically, all this did and said nothing - just a reflection of you're uh, "personality". Hmmm. Weren't exactly captain of your debate team were you?

I'll spell it out for you, out of the goodness of my heart:

Your first actual point. Let's call it "1". competition controls the prices in most industries, including health care of the non-essential kind, so why would anyone with a teaspoon of brains assume that it wouldn't have the same effect on more essential healthcare?

Let me know if you or your sniveling little compatriot ever get the stones to actually address the topic. I won't hold my breath. More of your "personality". Dale Carnegie graduate, were you?

Once you do, maybe I'll grant you the respect needed to let you ask me questions. Until then, "Must be conservative", huh? So you're prone to petty insults instead of debating the issues. If you can't be bothered to see the rest of the post, I see no reason why I should, hypocrite.

Wow. You're quite the angry little thing, aren't you? Obviously the answer to my question is that you have never lived in a country with universal health care - which is why you dodge it and stomp your little feeties etc...

So fine. I'd be happy to show how issues / questions are addressed directly. Then you will have something to aspire to!

Yes little angry person, competition can help pricing and service. In the USA, it does not do a sufficient job though. If it did, everyone would be able to afford basic health care and no one would file bankruptcy due to medical bills.
You rant all that time for one point (which has obviously been spoon-fed to you): The only way to provide any product or service is through competition.
This kind of dichotomous (ask a Liberal to explain that word to you) thinking is common among the ignorant and unsophisticated.
You're simply wrong.
There are many products and services that are delivered by the government without ANY competition. One of the best examples is libraries. They provide both a service and a product. They compete directly with book stores. They enable those who could not otherwise afford books (or prefer to simply get them for free) to enjoy reading. Did libraries put bookstores out of business? Nope. There is room for both. Are you against libraries? Do you consider libraries "Socialist"? No, of course not. Those who feed you your opinions, haven't told you to feel negatively about libraries.
But you have told to believe that the government providing health care must be bad. So you believe it. They prey upon your basic socio-political leanings and convince you there is reason in this foolishness. Oh well. Life in America, eh?
Allow me to educate you: Using tax dollars to provide for the welfare of our citizens doesn't make us a Socialist country. That too, is the product of ignorant and unsophisticated thinking. We have had social programs since before we were a country.
But it's okay. It's not like you think for yourself. If you did, I wouldn't be able to easily predict all of your opinions on over a dozen, unrelated political issues - which I can. Of course, you cannot do that with me because I think for myself.
So simply put. You're right in that competition can help pricing but you're wrong in that you think this is the only way in which pricing / service can be efficiently delivered. If you were right, there would be no Sherman Act.

What a lot of air to say nothing whatsoever. Call me when you can give me something other than campaign speeches about "If we want to be a wonderful country, we have to give away stuff" and conflating federal governments with state and local governments. This bilge wasn't even worth your worthless time to write, much less my valuable time to read.

"Libraries are great, so the federal government should pay for healthcare." I'm embarrassed for you.

LOL! Well sweetheart be embarrassed for me all you want. I'm not. Your ignorance is not due to a lack of intellect but of experience. Let me put it in simple terms and then you guys can feel brilliant by regurgitating the Glenn Beck soundbites.

We pay taxes. There's no getting around that.
The problem is not that we need NEW taxes to pay for healthcare.
The problem is that our government wastes so much money on other things and "giveaways" and you have all been told those other things are more important than the health of our citizens.
You have also been programmed to believe that health care is an "either / or" situation when it comes to "taking money from those who contribute", which is so stupid it's ludicrous but oh well.
And you all believe it.

We're going to continue paying taxes.
There is more than enough money in our revenue stream to pay for health care for every citizen.
This does not have to result in more money being taken from you, the rich or any other citizens.
This does not have to result in the elimination of private health care for those who want it.
This would be a tremendous boost to the economy.

You may now retort with some nice soundbites that were spoon-fed to you by FOX...

 

[logical4u]

Wow. You're quite the angry little thing, aren't you? Obviously the answer to my question is that you have never lived in a country with universal health care - which is why you dodge it and stomp your little feeties etc...

So fine. I'd be happy to show how issues / questions are addressed directly. Then you will have something to aspire to!

Yes little angry person, competition can help pricing and service. In the USA, it does not do a sufficient job though. If it did, everyone would be able to afford basic health care and no one would file bankruptcy due to medical bills.
You rant all that time for one point (which has obviously been spoon-fed to you): The only way to provide any product or service is through competition.
This kind of dichotomous (ask a Liberal to explain that word to you) thinking is common among the ignorant and unsophisticated.
You're simply wrong.
There are many products and services that are delivered by the government without ANY competition. One of the best examples is libraries. They provide both a service and a product. They compete directly with book stores. They enable those who could not otherwise afford books (or prefer to simply get them for free) to enjoy reading. Did libraries put bookstores out of business? Nope. There is room for both. Are you against libraries? Do you consider libraries "Socialist"? No, of course not. Those who feed you your opinions, haven't told you to feel negatively about libraries.
But you have told to believe that the government providing health care must be bad. So you believe it. They prey upon your basic socio-political leanings and convince you there is reason in this foolishness. Oh well. Life in America, eh?
Allow me to educate you: Using tax dollars to provide for the welfare of our citizens doesn't make us a Socialist country. That too, is the product of ignorant and unsophisticated thinking. We have had social programs since before we were a country.
But it's okay. It's not like you think for yourself. If you did, I wouldn't be able to easily predict all of your opinions on over a dozen, unrelated political issues - which I can. Of course, you cannot do that with me because I think for myself.
So simply put. You're right in that competition can help pricing but you're wrong in that you think this is the only way in which pricing / service can be efficiently delivered. If you were right, there would be no Sherman Act.

What a lot of air to say nothing whatsoever. Call me when you can give me something other than campaign speeches about "If we want to be a wonderful country, we have to give away stuff" and conflating federal governments with state and local governments. This bilge wasn't even worth your worthless time to write, much less my valuable time to read.

"Libraries are great, so the federal government should pay for healthcare." I'm embarrassed for you.

LOL! Well sweetheart be embarrassed for me all you want. I'm not. Your ignorance is not due to a lack of intellect but of experience. Let me put it in simple terms and then you guys can feel brilliant by regurgitating the Glenn Beck soundbites.

We pay taxes. There's no getting around that.
The problem is not that we need NEW taxes to pay for healthcare.
The problem is that our government wastes so much money on other things and "giveaways" and you have all been told those other things are more important than the health of our citizens.
You have also been programmed to believe that health care is an "either / or" situation when it comes to "taking money from those who contribute", which is so stupid it's ludicrous but oh well.
And you all believe it.

We're going to continue paying taxes.
There is more than enough money in our revenue stream to pay for health care for every citizen.
This does not have to result in more money being taken from you, the rich or any other citizens.
This does not have to result in the elimination of private health care for those who want it.
This would be a tremendous boost to the economy.

You may now retort with some nice soundbites that were spoon-fed to you by FOX...

They said, ..... as the country approaches 16,000,000,000 in borrowed revenues. The country is currently operating on borrowed money, .... but hey, there is money to pay for "health care". Take a look around; we were told that money was being spent on infrastructure (last two stimulus bills) and it went to the white house occupier's "corporate friends" (can you say "Wall Street"). The gov't will not "reform" medicaid/medicare/welfare/the food stamp program/unemployment benefits, and you think they are going to be responsible enough to clean those up to dedicate those same monies to "health care"? And you are calling others naive, and ignorant?

 

[IndependntLogic]

What a lot of air to say nothing whatsoever. Call me when you can give me something other than campaign speeches about "If we want to be a wonderful country, we have to give away stuff" and conflating federal governments with state and local governments. This bilge wasn't even worth your worthless time to write, much less my valuable time to read.

"Libraries are great, so the federal government should pay for healthcare." I'm embarrassed for you.

LOL! Well sweetheart be embarrassed for me all you want. I'm not. Your ignorance is not due to a lack of intellect but of experience. Let me put it in simple terms and then you guys can feel brilliant by regurgitating the Glenn Beck soundbites.

We pay taxes. There's no getting around that.
The problem is not that we need NEW taxes to pay for healthcare.
The problem is that our government wastes so much money on other things and "giveaways" and you have all been told those other things are more important than the health of our citizens.
You have also been programmed to believe that health care is an "either / or" situation when it comes to "taking money from those who contribute", which is so stupid it's ludicrous but oh well.
And you all believe it.

We're going to continue paying taxes.
There is more than enough money in our revenue stream to pay for health care for every citizen.
This does not have to result in more money being taken from you, the rich or any other citizens.
This does not have to result in the elimination of private health care for those who want it.
This would be a tremendous boost to the economy.

You may now retort with some nice soundbites that were spoon-fed to you by FOX...

They said, ..... as the country approaches 16,000,000,000 in borrowed revenues. The country is currently operating on borrowed money, .... but hey, there is money to pay for "health care". Take a look around; we were told that money was being spent on infrastructure (last two stimulus bills) and it went to the white house occupier's "corporate friends" (can you say "Wall Street"). The gov't will not "reform" medicaid/medicare/welfare/the food stamp program/unemployment benefits, and you think they are going to be responsible enough to clean those up to dedicate those same monies to "health care"? And you are calling others naive, and ignorant?

There is a difference between "can" and "will".
I am not saying they are ignorant because of what they think the government will or will not do.
I am using ignorant in it's definitive sense. They have no knowledge of government run health care so they believe all the bs fed to them.
But even then, there is a case that with our inept and corrupt government, we do occasionally get things right. How many people do you know on MediCare who refuse it so they can go pay for private insurance? When i was in the navy, I didn't know a single officer who paid for private insurance in favor of what we got for free - government run health care.
And I'm not talking about the money currently used in Medicare, welfare etc...

You think our politicians are corrupt? We give billions upon billions to the corrupt politicians of other countries every year. If we just stopped giving the taxpayer's money to them, we could provide millions of dollars of free health care every day and still be ahead.
Other areas of waste? You don't think maybe we spend a little too much on defense? Okay.

It's not that we don't have the revenues, it's that Bush and Obama have failed so miserably at handling our finances and everyone since Reagan has done such a poor job of prioritizing their use.

 

[logical4u]

healthcare should always be free, no one should suffer from their rights and worry about huge bills before they even step into the hospitals

Who are you saying should pay the "huge bills", people that did not receive the care?

 

[logical4u]

LOL! Well sweetheart be embarrassed for me all you want. I'm not. Your ignorance is not due to a lack of intellect but of experience. Let me put it in simple terms and then you guys can feel brilliant by regurgitating the Glenn Beck soundbites.

We pay taxes. There's no getting around that.
The problem is not that we need NEW taxes to pay for healthcare.
The problem is that our government wastes so much money on other things and "giveaways" and you have all been told those other things are more important than the health of our citizens.
You have also been programmed to believe that health care is an "either / or" situation when it comes to "taking money from those who contribute", which is so stupid it's ludicrous but oh well.
And you all believe it.

We're going to continue paying taxes.
There is more than enough money in our revenue stream to pay for health care for every citizen.
This does not have to result in more money being taken from you, the rich or any other citizens.
This does not have to result in the elimination of private health care for those who want it.
This would be a tremendous boost to the economy.

You may now retort with some nice soundbites that were spoon-fed to you by FOX...

They said, ..... as the country approaches 16,000,000,000 in borrowed revenues. The country is currently operating on borrowed money, .... but hey, there is money to pay for "health care". Take a look around; we were told that money was being spent on infrastructure (last two stimulus bills) and it went to the white house occupier's "corporate friends" (can you say "Wall Street"). The gov't will not "reform" medicaid/medicare/welfare/the food stamp program/unemployment benefits, and you think they are going to be responsible enough to clean those up to dedicate those same monies to "health care"? And you are calling others naive, and ignorant?

There is a difference between "can" and "will".
I am not saying they are ignorant because of what they think the government will or will not do.
I am using ignorant in it's definitive sense. They have no knowledge of government run health care so they believe all the bs fed to them.
But even then, there is a case that with our inept and corrupt government, we do occasionally get things right. How many people do you know on MediCare who refuse it so they can go pay for private insurance? When i was in the navy, I didn't know a single officer who paid for private insurance in favor of what we got for free - government run health care.
And I'm not talking about the money currently used in Medicare, welfare etc...

You think our politicians are corrupt? We give billions upon billions to the corrupt politicians of other countries every year. If we just stopped giving the taxpayer's money to them, we could provide millions of dollars of free health care every day and still be ahead.
Other areas of waste? You don't think maybe we spend a little too much on defense? Okay.

It's not that we don't have the revenues, it's that Bush and Obama have failed so miserably at handling our finances and everyone since Reagan has done such a poor job of prioritizing their use.

And you, that is "you" are talking about that same gov't suddenly becoming less corrupt and in every way efficient enough to handle healthcare. And in your fairytale world, the gov't will not use the massive database of individual medical costs and records to systematically start denying medical care to the more expensive, less productive 'citizens' (basically the "super race" only, it will be called the "healthy" or the "future")? In your fairytale world, politicians will not access political enemies or their families health records to blackmail those people in exchange for "health care"? Because after all, the gov't has proven time and time again that it can run business with less bureaucrats, less waste, and more efficiency than and "for profit" business. Your unicorns broke out of the fence, again; you need to go catch them.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

IMO healthcare is not a right for able-bodied adults. Affordable access to healthcare should certainly be available but not at the expense of others. We do need to provide social safety nets for chidren, those legitimately disabled, and elderly people (although I am flexible on the elderly as they should have planned sufficiently). I'm a conservative if that matters.

 

[IndependntLogic]

They said, ..... as the country approaches 16,000,000,000 in borrowed revenues. The country is currently operating on borrowed money, .... but hey, there is money to pay for "health care". Take a look around; we were told that money was being spent on infrastructure (last two stimulus bills) and it went to the white house occupier's "corporate friends" (can you say "Wall Street"). The gov't will not "reform" medicaid/medicare/welfare/the food stamp program/unemployment benefits, and you think they are going to be responsible enough to clean those up to dedicate those same monies to "health care"? And you are calling others naive, and ignorant?

There is a difference between "can" and "will".
I am not saying they are ignorant because of what they think the government will or will not do.
I am using ignorant in it's definitive sense. They have no knowledge of government run health care so they believe all the bs fed to them.
But even then, there is a case that with our inept and corrupt government, we do occasionally get things right. How many people do you know on MediCare who refuse it so they can go pay for private insurance? When i was in the navy, I didn't know a single officer who paid for private insurance in favor of what we got for free - government run health care.
And I'm not talking about the money currently used in Medicare, welfare etc...

You think our politicians are corrupt? We give billions upon billions to the corrupt politicians of other countries every year. If we just stopped giving the taxpayer's money to them, we could provide millions of dollars of free health care every day and still be ahead.
Other areas of waste? You don't think maybe we spend a little too much on defense? Okay.

It's not that we don't have the revenues, it's that Bush and Obama have failed so miserably at handling our finances and everyone since Reagan has done such a poor job of prioritizing their use.

And you, that is "you" are talking about that same gov't suddenly becoming less corrupt and in every way efficient enough to handle healthcare. And in your fairytale world, the gov't will not use the massive database of individual medical costs and records to systematically start denying medical care to the more expensive, less productive 'citizens' (basically the "super race" only, it will be called the "healthy" or the "future")? In your fairytale world, politicians will not access political enemies or their families health records to blackmail those people in exchange for "health care"? Because after all, the gov't has proven time and time again that it can run business with less bureaucrats, less waste, and more efficiency than and "for profit" business. Your unicorns broke out of the fence, again; you need to go catch them.

You make me laugh to the point that my lovely bride is asking what is so funny.
The only American government official who has ever denied critical healthcare to those needing it is a Conservative Republican. No surprise.
In the meantime, I love your 'fairytale world". Dark evil villains creating an aryan race or whatever. You realize that government health care is provided in virtually every industrialized nation in the world right? Which of them have created these super races you refer to?
But again, I get it. You have zero direct knowledge to draw from so you go to your little Glenn Beck Book of Responses. It IS funny to read.

 

[Bern80]

There is a difference between "can" and "will".
I am not saying they are ignorant because of what they think the government will or will not do.
I am using ignorant in it's definitive sense. They have no knowledge of government run health care so they believe all the bs fed to them.
But even then, there is a case that with our inept and corrupt government, we do occasionally get things right. How many people do you know on MediCare who refuse it so they can go pay for private insurance? When i was in the navy, I didn't know a single officer who paid for private insurance in favor of what we got for free - government run health care.
And I'm not talking about the money currently used in Medicare, welfare etc...

You think our politicians are corrupt? We give billions upon billions to the corrupt politicians of other countries every year. If we just stopped giving the taxpayer's money to them, we could provide millions of dollars of free health care every day and still be ahead.
Other areas of waste? You don't think maybe we spend a little too much on defense? Okay.

It's not that we don't have the revenues, it's that Bush and Obama have failed so miserably at handling our finances and everyone since Reagan has done such a poor job of prioritizing their use.

And you, that is "you" are talking about that same gov't suddenly becoming less corrupt and in every way efficient enough to handle healthcare. And in your fairytale world, the gov't will not use the massive database of individual medical costs and records to systematically start denying medical care to the more expensive, less productive 'citizens' (basically the "super race" only, it will be called the "healthy" or the "future")? In your fairytale world, politicians will not access political enemies or their families health records to blackmail those people in exchange for "health care"? Because after all, the gov't has proven time and time again that it can run business with less bureaucrats, less waste, and more efficiency than and "for profit" business. Your unicorns broke out of the fence, again; you need to go catch them.

You make me laugh to the point that my lovely bride is asking what is so funny.
The only American government official who has ever denied critical healthcare to those needing it is a Conservative Republican. No surprise.
In the meantime, I love your 'fairytale world". Dark evil villains creating an aryan race or whatever. You realize that government health care is provided in virtually every industrialized nation in the world right? Which of them have created these super races you refer to?
But again, I get it. You have zero direct knowledge to draw from so you go to your little Glenn Beck Book of Responses. It IS funny to read.

How many of those countries are not routinely running defecits in government health care spending forcing them to cut back on the very services you claim a government should provide? You libs just don't see the reality of government doing things for people. This is what you need to do. Everytime you say government should pay for x for people, substitute the word 'government' with 'you' or 'other people' or any othe pronoun for John Q. Taxpayer because that is where the money to pay for your care comes from. Your fellow citizens, not money tree in the rose garden. THAT is the reality. When you say government should pay for your healthcare you are really saying I should pay for your healthcare. To which I ask, why? Why is your health my responsibility more so than your own?

 

[IndependntLogic]

And you, that is "you" are talking about that same gov't suddenly becoming less corrupt and in every way efficient enough to handle healthcare. And in your fairytale world, the gov't will not use the massive database of individual medical costs and records to systematically start denying medical care to the more expensive, less productive 'citizens' (basically the "super race" only, it will be called the "healthy" or the "future")? In your fairytale world, politicians will not access political enemies or their families health records to blackmail those people in exchange for "health care"? Because after all, the gov't has proven time and time again that it can run business with less bureaucrats, less waste, and more efficiency than and "for profit" business. Your unicorns broke out of the fence, again; you need to go catch them.

You make me laugh to the point that my lovely bride is asking what is so funny.
The only American government official who has ever denied critical healthcare to those needing it is a Conservative Republican. No surprise.
In the meantime, I love your 'fairytale world". Dark evil villains creating an aryan race or whatever. You realize that government health care is provided in virtually every industrialized nation in the world right? Which of them have created these super races you refer to?
But again, I get it. You have zero direct knowledge to draw from so you go to your little Glenn Beck Book of Responses. It IS funny to read.

How many of those countries are not routinely running defecits in government health care spending forcing them to cut back on the very services you claim a government should provide?

You ask two questions as if they are one.
First: Is government health care profitable? No. It's not supposed to be. Is our military "profitable"? Nope. Should we get rid of it? Of course not. I love the programming that goes into convincing people that governments should always be profitable.
Second: Cutting back on benefits. I'm sure many countries are cutting back on benefits but none of the ones I've lived in are currently cutting benefits at all. Wait, check that. I had government run health care while in the military so I guess one is: The USA.

 

[Bern80]

You ask two questions as if they are one.
First: Is government health care profitable? No. It's not supposed to be. Is our military "profitable"? Nope. Should we get rid of it? Of course not. I love the programming that goes into convincing people that governments should always be profitable.

No one is claiming government must be profitable. It does need to stick within a budget. Most other countries are having a very difficult time doing that. Forget profitable. They aren't even thinking about profits because there in the red in many cases billions of dollars.

Second: Cutting back on benefits. I'm sure many countries are cutting back on benefits but none of the ones I've lived in are currently cutting benefits at all. Wait, check that. I had government run health care while in the military so I guess one is: The USA.

So let me get this straight. Based solely on results in the places you've experienced it, the U.S. was the one country that cut back your benefits. And that somehow lead you to believe government providing everyone's benefits would be a good idea?

Since you missed this I repeat:
You libs just don't see the reality of government doing things for people. This is what you need to do. Everytime you say government should pay for x for people, substitute the word 'government' with 'you' or 'other people' or any othe pronoun for John Q. Taxpayer because that is where the money to pay for your care comes from. Your fellow citizens, not money tree in the rose garden. THAT is the reality. When you say government should pay for your healthcare you are really saying I should pay for your healthcare. To which I ask, why? Why is your health my responsibility more so than your own?

 

[IndependntLogic]

You ask two questions as if they are one.
First: Is government health care profitable? No. It's not supposed to be. Is our military "profitable"? Nope. Should we get rid of it? Of course not. I love the programming that goes into convincing people that governments should always be profitable.

No one is claiming government must be profitable. It does need to stick within a budget. Most other countries are having a very difficult time doing that. Forget profitable. They aren't even thinking about profits because there in the red in many cases billions of dollars.

Based on your logic, we should have a huge surplus because of all the industrialized nations in the world, we're the only one who doesn't provide universal hc. But what do you know? No surplus! So your logic doesn't hold. As I've said, it's a matter of prioritization.

Second: Cutting back on benefits. I'm sure many countries are cutting back on benefits but none of the ones I've lived in are currently cutting benefits at all. Wait, check that. I had government run health care while in the military so I guess one is: The USA.

So let me get this straight. Based solely on results in the places you've experienced it, the U.S. was the one country that cut back your benefits. And that somehow lead you to believe government providing everyone's benefits would be a good idea?


Actually, the government never cut my benefits. I've been out for decades now. But I volunteer at our local VA and am the DOO of an organization that helps vets. So while the GOP has supported wars & the military industrial complex, they have systematically cut the benefits of those they send to fight them. No surprise. On the other hand, Sweden, Austria, Canada, Indonesia and The Ukraine are all pretty much where they were.

Since you missed this I repeat:
You libs just don't see the reality of government doing things for people. This is what you need to do. Everytime you say government should pay for x for people, substitute the word 'government' with 'you' or 'other people' or any othe pronoun for John Q. Taxpayer because that is where the money to pay for your care comes from. Your fellow citizens, not money tree in the rose garden. THAT is the reality. When you say government should pay for your healthcare you are really saying I should pay for your healthcare. To which I ask, why? Why is your health my responsibility more so than your own?

LOL! You are VERY entertaining. Not terribly sophisticated or knowledgeable of anything outside Gomerville, USA or wherever it is you live, but entertaining nonetheless.
Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.
What you have been programmed not to consider is that of all the bs my tax dollars go to, health care would have among the highest benefits to American Citizens, to employers who actually Hire 100% American and the American economy. But seriously, you're too brainwashed and seemingly not smart enough to figure it out, even if clearly evidenced.

Finally, let's have some fun! What is it that makes someone (in this case me) a "Liberal".
Is it their political beliefs and inclinations? Or is it just anyone who disagrees with you on so much a one issue?
It will be fun watching you dodge, avoid or cut & run from that question.

 

[Euro]

Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.

One thing I wonder is why do the US HC cost so much?. The pr. capita spending in US is much higher than other countries. Both public and private spending is the highest in the world. The US HC system must be extremely inefficient and bureacratically organized. France that has the number one and best HC in the world spend far less money on HC than US, that are ranked nr. 37 worse than Costa Rica.
Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

So the US bureaucrats must be extremely inefficient and greedy compared to other nations bureaucrats. I can understand Bern80s sceptic to government-run HC, because the US bureaucrats are less efficient and greedier than other nations bureaucrats. To make it better and cheaper you’ve to do something with all the bureaucrat costs the US system has. Because it’s far more bureaucratic than other systems, that makes it expensive.

I also know that it is a tradition to pay government workers more money than private sector workers in US, in Europe and Canada private sector workers earn more money than public sector workers.
So with the tradition you have in US to pay you’re government workers high salaries, the system will be more expensive. In Canada and Europe they control the salaries for the government workers.

You need to put more control on bureaucrats and politicians in US, control salaries on government workers to make HC cheaper. So it is hard to compare US with other systems because they don’t have the tradtion for greedy and overpaid government workers as in US.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.

One thing I wonder is why do the US HC cost so much?. The pr. capita spending in US is much higher than other countries. Both public and private spending is the highest in the world. The US HC system must be extremely inefficient and bureacratically organized. France that has the number one and best HC in the world spend far less money on HC than US, that are ranked nr. 37 worse than Costa Rica.
Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

So the US bureaucrats must be extremely inefficient and greedy compared to other nations bureaucrats. I can understand Bern80s sceptic to government-run HC, because the US bureaucrats are less efficient and greedier than other nations bureaucrats. To make it better and cheaper you’ve to do something with all the bureaucrat costs the US system has. Because it’s far more bureaucratic than other systems, that makes it expensive.

I also know that it is a tradition to pay government workers more money than private sector workers in US, in Europe and Canada private sector workers earn more money than public sector workers.
So with the tradition you have in US to pay you’re government workers high salaries, the system will be more expensive. In Canada and Europe they control the salaries for the government workers.

You need to put more control on bureaucrats and politicians in US, control salaries on government workers to make HC cheaper. So it is hard to compare US with other systems because they don’t have the tradtion for greedy and overpaid government workers as in US.

You make good points. You'd have to live both here and abroad to compare. Here, we have bureaucrats in both public and private sectors. So that right there, multiplies the cost. Most of the public health care has to ALSO go through the private sector bureaucrats. The public sector folks have the job of making sure care is delivered but not abused. The private sector bureaucrats have the job of making sure profits are insured by providing as little care possible but not so much that the number of lawsuits resulting from this poor treatment, will be more expensive than just giving the treatment. Our insurance companies here hire specialized accountant called actuaries, just to determine exactly how badly the patients can be screwed before it backfires on them.
Sad eh?

 

[logical4u]

There is a difference between "can" and "will".
I am not saying they are ignorant because of what they think the government will or will not do.
I am using ignorant in it's definitive sense. They have no knowledge of government run health care so they believe all the bs fed to them.
But even then, there is a case that with our inept and corrupt government, we do occasionally get things right. How many people do you know on MediCare who refuse it so they can go pay for private insurance? When i was in the navy, I didn't know a single officer who paid for private insurance in favor of what we got for free - government run health care.
And I'm not talking about the money currently used in Medicare, welfare etc...

You think our politicians are corrupt? We give billions upon billions to the corrupt politicians of other countries every year. If we just stopped giving the taxpayer's money to them, we could provide millions of dollars of free health care every day and still be ahead.
Other areas of waste? You don't think maybe we spend a little too much on defense? Okay.

It's not that we don't have the revenues, it's that Bush and Obama have failed so miserably at handling our finances and everyone since Reagan has done such a poor job of prioritizing their use.

And you, that is "you" are talking about that same gov't suddenly becoming less corrupt and in every way efficient enough to handle healthcare. And in your fairytale world, the gov't will not use the massive database of individual medical costs and records to systematically start denying medical care to the more expensive, less productive 'citizens' (basically the "super race" only, it will be called the "healthy" or the "future")? In your fairytale world, politicians will not access political enemies or their families health records to blackmail those people in exchange for "health care"? Because after all, the gov't has proven time and time again that it can run business with less bureaucrats, less waste, and more efficiency than and "for profit" business. Your unicorns broke out of the fence, again; you need to go catch them.

You make me laugh to the point that my lovely bride is asking what is so funny.
The only American government official who has ever denied critical healthcare to those needing it is a Conservative Republican. No surprise.
In the meantime, I love your 'fairytale world". Dark evil villains creating an aryan race or whatever. You realize that government health care is provided in virtually every industrialized nation in the world right? Which of them have created these super races you refer to?
But again, I get it. You have zero direct knowledge to draw from so you go to your little Glenn Beck Book of Responses. It IS funny to read.

Famous words of libs/progressives/dem/socialists/communists/homosexual activists/islam extremists/environmentalists (pick one, they all act the same).... "this time it will be DIFFERENT"....

 

[logical4u]

Okay since your ignorance has already been exposed, let's have some fun with your whackjobbery.
Actually, I would probably pay more for your health care than you would for mine. I'm in the tax bracket that would pay a couple extra points if things go Obama's way and I also employ others - which means I get double-dipped. So I would pay for my health care.

One thing I wonder is why do the US HC cost so much?. The pr. capita spending in US is much higher than other countries. Both public and private spending is the highest in the world. The US HC system must be extremely inefficient and bureacratically organized. France that has the number one and best HC in the world spend far less money on HC than US, that are ranked nr. 37 worse than Costa Rica.
Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

So the US bureaucrats must be extremely inefficient and greedy compared to other nations bureaucrats. I can understand Bern80s sceptic to government-run HC, because the US bureaucrats are less efficient and greedier than other nations bureaucrats. To make it better and cheaper you’ve to do something with all the bureaucrat costs the US system has. Because it’s far more bureaucratic than other systems, that makes it expensive.

I also know that it is a tradition to pay government workers more money than private sector workers in US, in Europe and Canada private sector workers earn more money than public sector workers.
So with the tradition you have in US to pay you’re government workers high salaries, the system will be more expensive. In Canada and Europe they control the salaries for the government workers.

You need to put more control on bureaucrats and politicians in US, control salaries on government workers to make HC cheaper. So it is hard to compare US with other systems because they don’t have the tradtion for greedy and overpaid government workers as in US.

Cosmetic surgery is considered "health care". Proceedures to assist people in weight loss are considered "health care". Laser eye surgery is considered "health care". Teeth whitening can even be considered "health care". Dermotology proceedures like mole removal, acne treatment, rashes, abrasive skin cleansing are considered "health care.

I like the USA. I think it is wonderful that you can spend your money however you want. A lot of people are concerned about their health, and spend BAM to appear and stay healthy. Much of that is "unecessary" to prolong their life, but they do, because they have the insurance or the money to do it. The people that are claiming to want "health care" for all, seem to be preoccupied with reducing access to "health care" for those that can actually afford it, and forcing them to carry others financial responsibilities is WRONG.
The same people that are screaming for the "republican canidates" to do the RIGHT thing, and the same ones that are demanding the gov't punish those that they hate and to do the WRONG thing. Why?