| Serious_frusting said: i agree with skifiboy the NHS is brillaint. healthcare is a right and not a privelige. America should just copy the UK when it comes to healthcare |
thank you, im glad someone else here understands that 
I presume his logic is that it will be cheaper to have government run healthcare because of all the the 'costs' that occur from being uninsured and sick. Basically, it's in the state's interest to have as many people healthy and being productive. It's not altruistic in any way. It's just better for the state to have a healthy population, especially if we needed to conscript an army (why else do you think obesity and smoking are constantly problems?)
I don't know if it will work though, but that's my take on how it could possibly make sense. Of course I'm assuming that those who get sick and/or have injuries and do not seek treatment only because they don't have insurance.
| SciFiBoy said: and how many millions must die for your privelige? 10m? 25m? 50m? 100m? perhaps more? |
All of them. Everyone dies.
What healthcare does is extends your life. Rich people live longer. They always will. Giving someone healthcare who otherwise would not have it, reduces that gap, but does not end it.
A right is something that rich and poor should share equally. Protecting the individual from others afford everyone the same rights.
Money has nothing to do with rights. If the US became dirt poor, we would lose a lot of healthcare in this country. No one however, will lose there rights (unless government takes them).
Saying healthcare is a right, is insanity.
The_vagabond7 said:
Just as a hypothetical, would you be against universal healthcare coverage if somebody came up with a fantastic plan that didn't have any of the supposed major flaws of other UHC plans? If it could be set up that the government had very efficient, cost effective method of offering healthcare to everyone with little to no wait time funded by a small tax on some common products (hypothetical here, not realistic), would you be against it on ideological grounds? Would you deny people healthcare if they didn't "earn" it? Simply as a hypothetical, not as a "well that's not realistic, that would never happen" ect ect. If there was great, effecient, cheap universal healthcare for everyone in america would you be angry about it because deadbeats could have get great health care the same as factory workers who could have it the same as highly educated hedge fund owners? |
we are all HUMAN ffs, why do you people not get this? your job, what you earn, your background all mean sweet FA when it comes to healthcare, everyone has that basic right, be they a homeless person on the street or a multi-millionare
Govenment/Public Healthcare is a right. Private Healthcare is a privilege
TheRealMafoo said:
All of them. Everyone dies. Saying healthcare is a right, is insanity. |
anyone who chooses to argue with this already should know they cannot possibly win.
| jv103 said: I presume his logic is that it will be cheaper to have government run healthcare because of all the the 'costs' that occur from being uninsured and sick. Basically, it's in the state's interest to have as many people healthy and being productive. It's not altruistic in any way. It's just better for the state to have a healthy population, especially if we needed to conscript an army (why else do you think obesity and smoking are constantly problems?) I don't know if it will work though, but that's my take on how it could possibly make sense. Of course I'm assuming that those who get sick and/or have injuries and do not seek treatment only because they don't have insurance. |
Couldn't have said it better myself. It hurts the economy overall the more people who are debilitated and don't have access to healthcare. It would raise tax revenues and boost the economy if people were healthier.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
| The_vagabond7 said: Just as a hypothetical, would you be against universal healthcare coverage if somebody came up with a fantastic plan that didn't have any of the supposed major flaws of other UHC plans? If it could be set up that the government had very efficient, cost effective method of offering healthcare to everyone with little to no wait time funded by a small tax on some common products (hypothetical here, not realistic), would you be against it on ideological grounds? Would you deny people healthcare if they didn't "earn" it? Simply as a hypothetical, not as a "well that's not realistic, that would never happen" ect ect. If there was great, effecient, cheap universal healthcare for everyone in america would you be angry about it because deadbeats could have get great health care the same as factory workers who could have it the same as highly educated hedge fund owners? |
I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it.
It would be against my ideology, but if what you painted could be done, I would not argue against it.
But there has never been an example of government running anything well. I would be much more for government reform then I would the government taking over.
| TheRealMafoo said:
I am all for stepping in and fixing healthcare. And if what you say could be done, I would not be against it. |
So should we let the private sector run the military? Or the police?
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
akuma587 said:
Couldn't have said it better myself. It hurts the economy overall the more people who are debilitated and don't have access to healthcare. It would raise tax revenues and boost the economy if people were healthier.
|
But almost all taxes are paid by the rich, and they have healthcare.
And Akuma, when you listen to it, it excludes Medicare and Medicaid from the equation. He is just talking about new healthcare reform.
Also, on the whole, the US is well taken care of. A perfect healthcare system would not do much for improving the quality of life in the US (from a health perspective).
On, and Akuma, as for all the points you bring up. I agree those are problems. But those problems actually make a lot of money for government. Healthcare costs are not tax free.. wait.. most of them are.
Ok, that's it. Your not paying healthcare, so you are spending your money on things that are not tax deductible. That's where the money is going to come from.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
