ckmlb said:
Kasz216 said:
It probably is... despite what it's being made out to be terrorism isn't really that big of a risk to the country. I mean, how many terrorist attacks have hit the US? Not that many... and most of them are domestic.
A bad piece of legislation can do way more damage then any attack could.
For example, which has done more damage to the US... Terrorism or Legislation that caused the bank meltdown crisis?
Terrorism or the War in Iraq?
Terrorism or Legislation that will cost everyone a lot more money, runs up the national debt, and won't get meanifgul benefits for 10 years (White house estimate) and may never actually produce realilizable benefits. (Opposition estimate.)
I'm going legislation every time... the first two killed more people, and this healthcare bill could ironically end up doing the same despite its goal being the opposite. (through effecting peoples pocket books negativly rather then positivly.)
|
You're only looking at terrorist attacks in the US, there have been many attacks against Americans and American interests and allies since 9/11.
Technically, 9/11 led to the legislation to go to Iraq which means terrorism caused (or was used as an excuse for) the invasion.
Where do you get the idea that more people will die from healthcare reform than the current state of healthcare? You're just making it up because of your ideological stance. 45000 people die each year because lack of health insurance, increasing coverage is gonna kill more people? How?
I have another question, do you value material losses as equal to the loss of human life? Legislation made it easier for people to do what they did which led to the meltdown, but greed caused it. People's greed led them to give out bad loands and other people to take the loans knowing they canoot pay them back and others to bet everything they had on the price of their homes stay high or keep climbing.
|
A) You don't know my ideological stance.
B) Our survival rates for major diseases are higher then every other country.
C) How can B be true as well as your statement? Simple, lieing with statistics. How is that 45,000 number calculated? Do you know....
No?
Guess what. I do. Cause i don't take statistics at made up face value.
They took crude deathrates of people of working age with private health insruane regular people and made a ratio.
People without Private inurance were 40% more likely to die, hence 45,000 people.
Of course people without private insruance are also poorer and live unhealthier lifestyles, but nevermind actual statistics. Nevermind that the poor die on a much higher rate even in countries like England when it comes to success rates of healthcare treatment. Nevermind that the poor are also more likely to be murdered or robbed because they live in unsafe neighberhoods.
So... no. 45,000 people do not die every year because they don't have healthcare. If you stopped being so blind and instead looked up the actual study that came up with that number you would know that too.
The current system however will cost us a hell of a lot more money and could lead to broad more expensive healthcare for all, since now those with prexisting conditions have to be absorbed by the system. In addition it could hurt the economy. Hurting the poors pocket books, making more people die.
It could infact hurt technological spending in medical procedures, as the US spends more then every other country in the world COMBINED. Meaning... more people die due to the stall of technology.
Why don't YOU value human life enough to actually fact check stuff before you blindly parot a stance.
