So, someone actually misinterpreted Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs?  Hmm....

Speaking about the person who put it up, not the response to it, which is above.

A)

(espiecally funny considering your heritage.)

B)   The funny thing is 95% of people are taught Maslow wrong anyway.  Most people are taught it's a set in stone "you need the bottom before the top".  Which wasn't actually maslows intent, and he actually did say you COULD self actualize without those things.

That and people think way more people are self actualizing then really are.  For Maslow it being more of a theoretical state, that you are only in for brief periods of time, giving examples of a few people who were what he saw as "closest."

(One of my former proffessors was a direct pupil of Maslow.)

I guess no there's no coorelation there.

Technically true, but they pretty much are just another front for them, and they got the last director fired.  Along with American's for Prosperity, Liberty Institute, and I forget how many things they control.  All under the guise of 'freedom' and 'liberty' but it's mostly just to make life easier for them, the two brothers and their businesses.

Heck, even their own sponsored 'global warming is a lie' researcher ended up saying, yup, man made pollution is a major problem for climate change. (aka global warming.)

Why they need so much power and control is something I'll never understand.  How many billions do you need to make before you are happy?

Starting their complete take over of Cato: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/freedomworks-koch-brothers-cato-institute-takeover_n_1420918.html

Then installed someone that will do the things they want, without the official title of 'takeover' but effective enough:  http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/25/nation/la-na-nn-koch-brothers-cato-institute-20120625

Anyway, my point is still valid: having them decide health care is credible as McDonald's setting the terms national nutrition levels.

I am pretty sure Maslow didn't want it to be so cut and dry, and was mainly looking at trends.  I would say the the pyramid also would dovetail in the poverty makes one dumber thread.  As one is taxed on the lower end, it gets to be much harder to get to the higher end, for most people.  Some people can show exceptions to that, and I believe cultures will usually put such people in the "saint" category.  But, just because few people do, doesn't mean most people can, so the chart is generally valid.

I would say, as with all models, they are abstractions of reality, and exceptions can be shown to the model.

A luxury. Free medical care takes away personal responsibility for your own health. I'm sick of my tax dollars going to lung cancer treatment for smokers, and people who got in accidents that were their own fault for doing stupid stuff. Also private care increases efficiency which leads to faster wait times and lower costs due to less bureaucratic non-sense.

That said, I'm still willing to compromise on a two-tiered system. Guaranteed emergency care for everyone, but privatized care for less urgent matters.

What you describe is actually what is here now.  The emergency room is guaranteed, while the rest is private, outside of Medicare.  So, what I am seeing is you are arguing for is an abolition of Medicare and Medicaid, and use of emergency rooms more.  This is the most expensive otpion.  You will get people with heart attacks showing up, that could of been prevented.  And, if I am reading correctly, you will have an emergency room where you have a legal judge that would hear evidence for whether or not the person did it by stupidity or not, and then they are admitted.  In short, if you don't have necessary resources, you need to have legal help to be able to get yourself life saving help.  So, you added to the costs of the emergency room, the costs of the legal system, unless you have money.

Now, if you want to start addressing these issues, you are getting into Obamacare where people are required to have coverage, or pay taxes to pay for emergency rooms.  There is also subsidies to have people buy in a market.  Each of these is set up in 50 different states.  The Republican alternative is to nationalize these markets and use vouchers, where people are given tax dollars to buy into it.

So, I am not sure what you want is actually the most effective way of doing it, or would keep costs down.

Yeah I guess you're right, my idea needs a little fine tuning. 

The one thing I know I want gone is medicare/medicaid. I don't want any of that government crap. Seniors have the greatest wealth of any age category so I don't get why senior health care is such a concern...honestly young adults/middle aged people need the help more than seniors if anything. 

I can live with healthcare though, there are other things like social security, foreign aid, and welfare that I'd want gone first. 

Due to Social Security, millions of elderly are avoiding poverty.  They also aren't really employable in ways they could survive either.  And the family has broken down to an extent where they don't get much help.  Medicaid is for non-elderly, pretty much those who are not poor.

I do think you need to seriously look at your idea, and you need to consider possibly major refining, and get some solid numbers.  Also, come up with an acceptable number of added deaths in society by your removing things.  And then, if you want to persuade people on your views, you are going to have to show how it is superior.

I don't really get the big deal with foreign aid. It's something like 20 billion a year. That's a drop in the bucket of what the US spends every year. Cutting it isn't going to exactly be key to any plan of shrinking the debt.