- Liberal hypocrite
Any more of that and I will have to insist that "Stripes' " mother tie his hands and take away his pencils and papers before he starts making "obscene or forbidden gestures and drawings."
Last edited:
The Case Against Universal Healthcare
- Thread starter lovemeorhateme
- Start date
Any more of that and I will have to insist that "Stripes' " mother tie his hands and take away his pencils and papers before he starts making "obscene or forbidden gestures and drawings."
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I get the impression most lefties on here at least pay there own way.
Most are concerned about protecting those less well off than themselves than lining there own pockets.
Some scripture where God speaks on distribution of wealth
Amos 8;4-7
Isiah 3:14
Mic 3:9
Isiah 5v8
Ezek 18:5-9
leviticus 25
did I just go all squeaky on you ?
Most are concerned about protecting those less well off than themselves than lining there own pockets.
Some scripture where God speaks on distribution of wealth
Amos 8;4-7
Isiah 3:14
Mic 3:9
Isiah 5v8
Ezek 18:5-9
leviticus 25
did I just go all squeaky on you ?
Last edited:
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
What's unfair about it?
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
Agreed.
But what if someone doesn't want to pay into the fire service? Is the government stealing from them to pay for other people's fire protection? Is it coveting to want a fire service which is there for everyone? What of those who for whatever reason don't work and so aren't paying for the fire service? Should they be denied access to the fire service?
In 2011, the United States had the 3rd most expensive healthcare in the world when medical costs are expressed as a % of GDP.
Liberia (1st) and Sierra Leone (2nd) are currently in the midst of an "ebola" outbreak so both could be considered exceptional cases.
Those countries with universal healthcare systems all spent significantly less as a % of their GDP that the US and most achieved far better results.
Life expectency is widely accepted as one of the important measures of the health of a nation and the effectiveness of its healthcare system.
With the 3rd highest rate of medical expenditures, one would expect the US to have the "Cadillac" of medical systems, but it is ranked only 42nd in terms of life expectency and millions of its citizens are either uninsured or underinsured.
As a nation, America is currently not receiving good value for its healthcare dollars given that over 17.90% of its GDP is spent on health.
American-Canadian Comparisons
**********************************************************
- 100% of Canadian citizens are automatically enrolled in a universal healthcare system financed with general revenues
- Canadians pay no deductables
- in 2011, Canada spent 6.7% less of its GDP on healthcare than the US
- the average Canadian lives 2.11 years longer than his/her American counterpart
- 62% of personal bankruptcies in the US are health related
- 1 in 5 Americans will have difficulties paying their medical bills this year
http://www.giveforward.com/p/medical-bankruptcy
Last edited:
The government has the right and ability to require taxes from people. Those who do not pay put themselves subject to the law.
For a hypothetical man who makes the bizarre decision that he does not want his tax dollars going toward emergency response, I guess he could make an appeal to the government, but I reckon he would get laughed out of town.
Tyrathca
New member
So taxes that pay for services to other people are OK as long as Stripe agrees with them?
What is your reason for your difference in opinion between these two services? An arbitrary definition of emergency? Or are you just a hypocrite covering rich peoples money to pay for your fire and police services?
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
So if you feel this way about the fire service, why do you not feel the same about health? What arbitrary definition of "emergency" are you using?
To me this seems to be a logically inconsistent position. After all, the very arguments being used against the idea of universal healthcare could just as easily be used against the idea of a universal fire service which is available to all, paid for by taxation and free to all at point of need, irrespective of income.
genuineoriginal
New member
It is not fair to look at whether everyone gets the same thing if you don't care how fair the giving is.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Precisely, not that you'll get Stripe to concede his aberration. Apparently a heart attack requiring emergency assistance is somehow different in his particular 'world view'. Fire trucks yes, ambulances no is what it amounts to...
Nope. How about you try reading. :thumb: The standard I have given to justify government involvement in running certain aspects of society has been clearly laid out.
Evolutionists hate reading.
You're advocating "universal" healthcare. The vast majority of healthcare is mundane, day-to-day stuff; much like grocery shopping.
I would have no problem with a universal emergency response system run by the government. However, that would look absolutely nothing like what you are proposing.
Nope. Emergency response is a vastly different notion to healthcare. It looks as if you are using extreme health emergencies to argue that all healthcare has to be paid for.
Not if you accept the notion that there are some things that are necessary functions of government.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So it is pretty much a case of fire trucks yes/ambulances no depending.
For the sake of sanity get some new mantras as well Stripe. You're like a 78rpm record on repeat...:freak:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
A lot of serious medical conditions wouldn't show up like a fire or anything as immediate, yet still need treatment and are still effectively an emergency for those suffering through debilitating and life threatening conditions. Do you think these things through at all stripe?
Tyrathca
New member
Yes your standard had been laid out and it is inconsistent to the point of now looking almost arbitrary.
What do you consider emergency response with regards to health? Because it is not so easily black and white as you seem to imply.
And are we talking emergency treatment or investigation? If emergency investigations how likely does the serious condition have to be to warrant investigation (or who decides this) because too lenient can EASILY be manipulated and too strict is obviously a problem. With emergency treatment how soon is needed? For example if surgery is required in 2 days, vs 2 weeks vs 2 months and for what mortality/morbidity risk if delayed beyond?
You're policy would result in stark variations in management due to funding methods but there is no stark line dividing where each should apply. Instead there is a massive gray zone unless you've put more thought into it than you've shared so far. I don't think you comprehend what healthcare actually involves beyond simple scripts at the General Practitioner or extreme emergency department presentations you've seen in movies or perhaps heard of from someone.
Then you should be able to respond to it rationally instead of inventing ideas you think you can beat up. :thumb:
I see you've found yourself a rabbit trail you can use as an enticement for us to chase, instead of responding to the meat of what I said.
You are idiot.
Tyrathca
New member
The meat of what you said seems to be that you have no issue with "emergency responses" run by government for health but everything else for health is no. The problem is that you have given no indication of what you consider "emergency response" to even guess what this would look like in practice. You don't even apparently understand enough about healthcare to see why such a distinction isn't obvious, there are so many viable interpretations guessing would be a waste of time.
Says the ignorant dunce....
Nope. You're going to have to learn to read. :thumb: