It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canadian doctor makes anti-Obamacare senator look like a buffoon

page: 12
36
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Leonidas

NavyDoc

masqua

NavyDoc

Someone who wants to keep what they ear to take acre of themselves and their family or someone who didn't earn it want to take that to take care of someone else. I'm surprised that someone who believes in freedom likes to take from his neighbor.


Are you willing to pay taxes for the US military so that Americans can stay free or do you think it better that every American should be personally responsible?

Or not...?


"Provide for the common defense" is a specifically enumerated duty of the federal government. Taking care of all your wants and needs is not.

Do you think you should be personally responsible for keeping a roof over your head, food in your stomach, clothes on your back or do you think that is the duty of the state as well?


Who said anything about "All your wants and needs"?

We are talking about the essence of human existence. Life. Health.

How do you make the jump from sharing healthcare costs to "All your wants and needs"?

Nobody here is talking about that and no reasonable person in Canada or America would consider that for a second.

Healthcare, just healthcare. Medical needs for you and your family. Full stop.


That's what you are suggesting with this philosophy. Is not food the essence of life? Clothing? Why should the government not provide that for all as well? Why should you be forced by greedy capitalists to provide your own food and shelter as you have a right to those?


No. No, I'm not suggesting anything. I am explicitly only talking about healthcare. Period. Only healthcare. That's it.

No Philosophy, no greater concepts, none of that. You keep bringing up those things.

And Healthcare isn't free, we all pay into Healthcare via taxes. The "Government" paying for Healthcare is actually US paying for Healthcare.

Nothing more. Healthcare.




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Leonidas

NavyDoc

Leonidas

NavyDoc

masqua

NavyDoc

Someone who wants to keep what they ear to take acre of themselves and their family or someone who didn't earn it want to take that to take care of someone else. I'm surprised that someone who believes in freedom likes to take from his neighbor.


Are you willing to pay taxes for the US military so that Americans can stay free or do you think it better that every American should be personally responsible?

Or not...?


"Provide for the common defense" is a specifically enumerated duty of the federal government. Taking care of all your wants and needs is not.

Do you think you should be personally responsible for keeping a roof over your head, food in your stomach, clothes on your back or do you think that is the duty of the state as well?


Who said anything about "All your wants and needs"?

We are talking about the essence of human existence. Life. Health.

How do you make the jump from sharing healthcare costs to "All your wants and needs"?

Nobody here is talking about that and no reasonable person in Canada or America would consider that for a second.

Healthcare, just healthcare. Medical needs for you and your family. Full stop.


That's what you are suggesting with this philosophy. Is not food the essence of life? Clothing? Why should the government not provide that for all as well? Why should you be forced by greedy capitalists to provide your own food and shelter as you have a right to those?


No. No, I'm not suggesting anything. I am explicitly only talking about healthcare. Period. Only healthcare. That's it.

No Philosophy, no greater concepts, none of that. You keep bringing up those things.

And Healthcare isn't free, we all pay into Healthcare via taxes. The "Government" paying for Healthcare is actually US paying for Healthcare.

Nothing more. Healthcare.



But that is disingenuous to be talking about rights and compassion and so forth for your fellow man on JUST ONE subject. Are you telling me that you are only compassionate where healthcare is covered but #-'em on other things?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Leonidas

NavyDoc

Leonidas

NavyDoc

masqua

NavyDoc

Someone who wants to keep what they ear to take acre of themselves and their family or someone who didn't earn it want to take that to take care of someone else. I'm surprised that someone who believes in freedom likes to take from his neighbor.


Are you willing to pay taxes for the US military so that Americans can stay free or do you think it better that every American should be personally responsible?

Or not...?


"Provide for the common defense" is a specifically enumerated duty of the federal government. Taking care of all your wants and needs is not.

Do you think you should be personally responsible for keeping a roof over your head, food in your stomach, clothes on your back or do you think that is the duty of the state as well?


Who said anything about "All your wants and needs"?

We are talking about the essence of human existence. Life. Health.

How do you make the jump from sharing healthcare costs to "All your wants and needs"?

Nobody here is talking about that and no reasonable person in Canada or America would consider that for a second.

Healthcare, just healthcare. Medical needs for you and your family. Full stop.


That's what you are suggesting with this philosophy. Is not food the essence of life? Clothing? Why should the government not provide that for all as well? Why should you be forced by greedy capitalists to provide your own food and shelter as you have a right to those?


No. No, I'm not suggesting anything. I am explicitly only talking about healthcare. Period. Only healthcare. That's it.

No Philosophy, no greater concepts, none of that. You keep bringing up those things.

And Healthcare isn't free, we all pay into Healthcare via taxes. The "Government" paying for Healthcare is actually US paying for Healthcare.

Nothing more. Healthcare.



But that is disingenuous to be talking about rights and compassion and so forth for your fellow man on JUST ONE subject. Are you telling me that you are only compassionate where healthcare is covered but #-'em on other things?


How is being consistent in my desire to make sure my fellow citizens have the best healthcare possible, and they wont risk losing their home, business and savings to save the life of a child or themselves being disingenuous?

Well, I guess I am a horrible person then. But at least I want to make sure everyone has healthcare. What does it say about a man that doesn't even want to do that?


edit on 17-3-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Leonidas


- I don't know the details of how it passed, but how can a democratically elected government put something into law without the support of the majority of representatives agreeing to it? It certainly seems like you have a legitimate concern if this system was put in place without the votes in Congress and the Senate to support it. I would be pissed off too.

Then maybe you should go and look-up how this crap was passed.


Leonidas
- I am still not clear on why it is okay to fund the Defense budget with tax dollars, but not healthcare. The Defense budget pays for men and materiel for the benefit of everybody. Healthcare is for the benefit of everybody too.

edit on 17-3-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)

National defense is within the construct of our country. The Military doesn't exactly benefit everyone. It is there to provide physical defense of the country.
Healthcare is none of the above.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thov420
 


www.salon.com...
Salon of all places has a decent explanation of the law in question.

It is a law stating that US hospitals must treat anyone that comes in through the doors, regardless of their ability to pay.

It has put numerous hospitals into bankruptcy.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


Yeah, the Govt here ceases to be "US" when they take our money to give to others, basically to purchase the voting populace in the area they preside over.

I'm not represented when I have my earning stolen from me to give to my neighbor.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Leonidas

NavyDoc

Leonidas

NavyDoc

Leonidas

NavyDoc

masqua

NavyDoc

Someone who wants to keep what they ear to take acre of themselves and their family or someone who didn't earn it want to take that to take care of someone else. I'm surprised that someone who believes in freedom likes to take from his neighbor.


Are you willing to pay taxes for the US military so that Americans can stay free or do you think it better that every American should be personally responsible?

Or not...?


"Provide for the common defense" is a specifically enumerated duty of the federal government. Taking care of all your wants and needs is not.

Do you think you should be personally responsible for keeping a roof over your head, food in your stomach, clothes on your back or do you think that is the duty of the state as well?


Who said anything about "All your wants and needs"?

We are talking about the essence of human existence. Life. Health.

How do you make the jump from sharing healthcare costs to "All your wants and needs"?

Nobody here is talking about that and no reasonable person in Canada or America would consider that for a second.

Healthcare, just healthcare. Medical needs for you and your family. Full stop.


That's what you are suggesting with this philosophy. Is not food the essence of life? Clothing? Why should the government not provide that for all as well? Why should you be forced by greedy capitalists to provide your own food and shelter as you have a right to those?


No. No, I'm not suggesting anything. I am explicitly only talking about healthcare. Period. Only healthcare. That's it.

No Philosophy, no greater concepts, none of that. You keep bringing up those things.

And Healthcare isn't free, we all pay into Healthcare via taxes. The "Government" paying for Healthcare is actually US paying for Healthcare.

Nothing more. Healthcare.



But that is disingenuous to be talking about rights and compassion and so forth for your fellow man on JUST ONE subject. Are you telling me that you are only compassionate where healthcare is covered but #-'em on other things?


How is being consistent in my desire to make sure my fellow citizens have the best healthcare possible, and they wont risk losing their home, business and savings to save the life of a child or themselves being disingenuous?

Well, I guess I am a horrible person then. But at least I want to make sure everyone has healthcare. What does it say about a man that doesn't even want to do that?


edit on 17-3-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)


No, I'm not saying you are a horrible person, however, when you are talking to people who don't believed in forced charity and tell us that we are not empathetic because we don't believe in socialized medicine then say that its all about empathy, then one points out that why is it empathetic in having state run healthcare but not other state run essentials in life.

I certainly want everyone to have the ability to have healthcare if they want it. Not forced upon them by government mandate. What does it say about a man who wants everyone to be forced to have something just because he thinks its good for them to have?

The best way to ensure this, at least in the states, but I'd argue that it applies anywhere, is to reduce governmental interference, more freedom of choice, more competition (you realize that its illegal by federal law to sell health insurance across state lines like car insurance), less regulation, less lawsuits (your malpractice liability is TINY compared to ours). Government created our problems with healthcare and I boggles my mind that people want to give over the problem to the very people who created the problems in the first place to "fix" them. Freedom of choice, competition, and less governmental interference gives the best to the most for the least and I want my neighbor to be happy, healthy, and free to make his own decision in life.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33


"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people." -John Adams 1776

That is nice and all, and now I suppose you will go down the Progressive path if the "welfare" clause as well.
So, happiness is taking from me, to give to someone else.
Truly the Forgotten Man.


intelligenthoodlum33
Don't worry. I can see you are not happy.

With having 1/4 of my earnings taken from me, you are damn right I'm not happy. Especially since not only am I told by people like you that I should be "happy" with that, but that I should be paying more.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Monger
reply to post by macman
 


Durn right good buddy! The gubbment is there to provide HOT LEAD DOWN RANGE AT MUSLIMS! And to write tax loopholes into legislation big enough to guide your average American through.

RA RA RA RA! Government dollars should be spent to kill poor people, not to prevent them from dying!


And when did I state that????
In fact, if you spent the same amount of time in writing your BS, and actually researched what I have stated about a standing army and the current wars, you would have retorted with just the opposite.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

macman
With having 1/4 of my earnings taken from me, you are damn right I'm not happy. Especially since not only am I told by people like you that I should be "happy" with that, but that I should be paying more.

Then you are really not going to be happy in the very near future.

Universal health care is the 'cheaper' option...short term and long...



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by thov420
 


www.salon.com...
Salon of all places has a decent explanation of the law in question.

It is a law stating that US hospitals must treat anyone that comes in through the doors, regardless of their ability to pay.

It has put numerous hospitals into bankruptcy.



I don't think you understand how bizarre Canadians find the concept of a "bankrupt hospital" in a civilized country.
edit on 17-3-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


It is not sustainable.

And tax dollars should not be going towards this.

It is not what the Govt was designed to do.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

peck420

macman
With having 1/4 of my earnings taken from me, you are damn right I'm not happy. Especially since not only am I told by people like you that I should be "happy" with that, but that I should be paying more.

Then you are really not going to be happy in the very near future.

Universal health care is the 'cheaper' option...short term and long...


Actually, it is the more expensive option overall, just "cheaper" for the consumer in direct out of pocket costs. Less efficient and less innovative too.

There is no perfect system. However, it would hurt medical care worldwide if every nation had the same, governmental system, because the majority of innovation comes from competitive, free market systems.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


About as bizarre as the Govt taking from me to provide for someone else.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Leonidas

macman
reply to post by thov420
 


www.salon.com...
Salon of all places has a decent explanation of the law in question.

It is a law stating that US hospitals must treat anyone that comes in through the doors, regardless of their ability to pay.

It has put numerous hospitals into bankruptcy.



I don't think you understand how bizarre Canadians find the concept of a "bankrupt hospital" in a civilized country.
edit on 17-3-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)


Shrug. We find a 39 week wait for a hip replacement bizarre for a civilized country as well.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


eh; as to what a 30-week wait? (or no wait if you can afford to pay extra, which most people can't)

at the very least you're getting your hip replaced, and not going bankrupt while doing so..



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

NavyDoc
Actually, it is the more expensive option overall, just "cheaper" for the consumer in direct out of pocket costs. Less efficient and less innovative too.

The rest of the world disagrees...and every economic institution...


There is no perfect system. However, it would hurt medical care worldwide if every nation had the same, governmental system, because the majority of innovation comes from competitive, free market systems.

That completely explains why private funding continues to fall while public funding (all in regards to medical R&D) continues to rise...and has been since 60's...



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

peck420

The rest of the world disagrees...and every economic institution...

So, if the rest of the world jumps off a bridge, we should as well.


And what institutes are stating single payer is the silver bullet again??



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

NavyDoc

There is no perfect system. However, it would hurt medical care worldwide if every nation had the same, governmental system, because the majority of innovation comes from competitive, free market systems.



That's actually depends a lot on what the field of innovation is... And who's to say that there couldn't still be competition even with state-funded hospitals? After all the doctors and nursing/staff of the hospital don't build/manufacture medical equipment, nor do they manufacture or research the drugs necessarily, hence there is room for competition in the areas of "how effective a drug is", or "how expensive is this (x-ray/mri/whatever) machine to run/purchase/etc.."...



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

peck420

NavyDoc
Actually, it is the more expensive option overall, just "cheaper" for the consumer in direct out of pocket costs. Less efficient and less innovative too.

The rest of the world disagrees...and every economic institution...


There is no perfect system. However, it would hurt medical care worldwide if every nation had the same, governmental system, because the majority of innovation comes from competitive, free market systems.

That completely explains why private funding continues to fall while public funding (all in regards to medical R&D) continues to rise...and has been since 60's...


"Every" economic institution? That's a pretty broad and very incorrect statement. Not even close.

Private funding to academic institutions perhaps, however private funding for private research in the for-profit sector. Not even close.

I think some real economics education, not leftist ideology would help you.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join