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.

 

Why I decided to oppose universal healthcare

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

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Let's say there is universal healthcare, it has to be structured to be fair, age based. The older, the more one receives for healthcare. The younger, the less one receives for healthcare. It cannot be the same amount per person. Let's say I'm 70, I would have to receive twice as much as someone who is 35 in order to be fair, because elderly are more vulnerable to disease than younger people.
edit on 15-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Do you have private insurance?

If you do there is a big pool of money that everyone pays into (socialism) and a private company takes your money and gives it to a medical facility to cover the patient (weak).

Do you agree?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

And my dog likes to chase squirrels.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

I want to reply to this part of your rediculous reply

It would be against God if I pay for their healthcare with my money.


If your god is the one in the bible, then you're wrong.

Acts 20:35 - I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive

Matthew 5:42 - Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

I could go on, but my point is made with just them.

PS, I'm not religious, but if you want to bring your god into it, then I have to use it to prove you wrong.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Yeah the 70 year old will probably need medical treatment more often.

They've worked and paid taxes into the system their whole lives so they're more than entitled to it. Everyone of any circumstance is entitled to it. It is UNIVERSAL.

You get sick, get treatment as needed. Why are you now creating artificial blocks and usage grants in the system?



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

No I never have health insurance. I am healthy. I never go to hospital.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

But an age based scheme breaks down because some children are more vulnerable due to certain genetic diseases. Age based scheme would be the most fair if these perks can be work out.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

No strep throat, or chick pox or broken bones.

Good for you.
edit on 15-6-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: allsee4eye

Yeah the 70 year old will probably need medical treatment more often.

They've worked and paid taxes into the system their whole lives so they're more than entitled to it. Everyone of any circumstance is entitled to it. It is UNIVERSAL.

You get sick, get treatment as needed. Why are you now creating artificial blocks and usage grants in the system?


I am 57 and have paid into the system for 42 years. These young f*cks have no idea how to fight our old asses without looking like d-bags.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Ohanka

But an age based scheme breaks down because some children are more vulnerable due to certain genetic diseases. Age based scheme would be the most fair if these perks can be work out.


No an age based system would be discriminatory which eliminates the universal from universal healthcare.

I mean obviously a 19 year old who needs a new heart will be higher on the transplant list than a 90 year old. But denying people healthcare altogether based on age and former usage is disgusting.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

It does not break down, it gets more expensive.


You not needing a dr. is a very rare occurrence.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Universal healthcare means everyone taking care of everyone else. It is a good concept. It should be age based, not need based. The amount one receives should increase with increasing age, with a cap of 100 years old, at which point it reaches limit.
edit on 15-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Universal healthcare means everyone taking care of everyone else. It is a good concept. It should be age based, not need based. The amount one received should increase with increasing age, with a cap of 100 years old, at which point it reaches limit.


No it should be need based. Even when you advocate for universal healthcare you do it in the worst way possible.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Ohanka

But an age based scheme breaks down because some children are more vulnerable due to certain genetic diseases. Age based scheme would be the most fair if these perks can be work out.


I don't think you have a clue about genetics, you have provided no sources through this entire conversation, just keep spouting your opinion. Bring your sources, personally, don't think you have any.

I am going edit to ad, I think you are the vision of ever asshat racist that has ever populated the earth.
edit on 6/15/2017 by BubbaJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Universal healthcare means everyone taking care of everyone else. It is a good concept. It should be age based, not need based. The amount one receives should increase with increasing age, with a cap of 100 years old, at which point it reaches limit.


Sounds like a fantastic idea!

Kids with leukemia? Let them die, they're not old enough.

Kids with cancer? Let them die, they're not old enough.

Kids who got into a car crash and need a heart transplant? Let them die, they're not old enough.

Sounds like a wonderful world, full of rainbows and Hitler.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

It should not be need based because people who are poor or weak would have the most need, and it wouldn't be fair to rich and strong. In society where everyone has 1 vote regardless of wealth or genetics, it would not be fair to treat people differently based on wealth or genetics in a universal healthcare.
edit on 15-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
What was that they supposedly sent to the military recently?, $53 billion?.

Stop wasting money on defense, everything is already in place to prevent people from running aircraft into buildings already, and there really aren't such big threats to the country from Russia or North Korea or whatever. I see an inundation of dark news that keeps people feeling uneasy, maybe fearful, that makes them feel threatened and pay for nothing willfully.

It isn't that people should pay more taxes to develop a healthcare system that would work for more people so much as if the government would be way more efficient with the money it takes from the people by force.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Ohanka

It should not be need based because people who are poor or weak would have the most need, and it wouldn't be fair to rich and strong. In society where everyone has 1 vote regardless of wealth or genetics, it would not be fair to treat people differently based on wealth or genetics in a universal healthcare.


I don't even understand this. Truth be told a lot of your posts here border on the indecipherable.

I really don't think you understand the concept of universal healthcare at all.
edit on -050010pm6kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Why would it be unfair to the rich? They would be paying the same % as everyone else.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

News flash.

The world just ain't really fair.

...And most have more than they need anyway...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join