If the USA doesn't give 100% 'Basic' Medical Coverage to its People - It is Evil

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Here's what confuses me.

Some people want a socialist-styled government.

They want to use the Constitution and election process to create that.

But in order to maintain that, they'd have to get rid of the Constitution in order to keep it.

So, in essence, they are using our free society to eliminate our free society.

Why does it have to be a choice between hard capitalism or hard socialism?

Countrys run into problems they swing to one extreme or the other.

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Willtell

Car Insurance?

I'm not mandated at birth to buy a ####ing car!

Look, if you can find a government that is filled with kind modest people who only want to help, then couple that with a population of people that are willing to work, aren't selfish and greedy, then socialism might work.

Might.

Sweden.

Problem is they where so keen to help they let half the middle east in and now its ruined.

Yes, well and now you are lecturing us where we have already let in 1/4 of Mexico and good chunks of many S. American countries, not counting the ones who have come here illegally from Asia, Africa, and even parts of Europe.

You are pretty much talking about what used to be a culturally homogenous society where everyone was more or less the same, and you are lecturing a society that is much larger than yours that has always been much more multi-ethnic and less coherent.

And your excuse now is that you have become multi-ethnic so your own so-called perfect situation is ruined?

That's hilarious in a sad way.

a reply to: AutonomousMeatPuppet
an annual free check up is of no use if one can't afford to actually go further, get the diagnosis and care needed. the medications needed...
I went ten years working with a couple of years break in the middle, paying for the company's group insurance plan, and went under financially long before the care I was receiving provided me with an accurate diagnosis... just to find myself not able to work, still not really knowing what the problem is... went a few years just being content staying home taking care of house and home, kids... they hubby passed on.... AND I WAS SOL!!!

the idea that if we want healthcare we should get a job and stop being lazy is 100% bullcrap in so many ways...
many of those complaining now have jobs, heck they might even have insurance....
one of my bosses at my last job did.... but she couldn't afford the medications she needed, of which one was costing close to $100 a pill!!
and meanwhile, there's plenty of people out there, many single moms, who's occupation is seems is simply to bear and take care of young children... and the gov't seems to be taking care of them far better than the jobs the working people some are calling lazy can provide for them!!

if healthcare is not a right, at least for some....
they pray tell, why is the gov't taking money that these workers could be using to at least maybe buy some herbal remedies that might help, or make a doctor's appointment or use to buy their medications to provide in order to give that right to those they deem as worthy???

the gov't uses taxmoney to not only provide healthcare for those they deem as being poor and worthy of their help, but also to build and improve the healthcare system..
and that is the reason it should be considered a right for all!!!

a sick person, who can't buy the medicine that would help him be more productive at his job should never have the government taking money from him so another can have the medicine they need...
a homeless person should never have money taken from him to provide a roof over someone else's head...
a person with no food on their table should not have money taken from them to place food on someone else's table!!!

by doing these things, the gov't makes the roof, the medicine, the food a right to all who have pay into the pot that is being used for the handouts!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InsaneIthorian

If the argument is that we should provide it for the most vulnerable, then that has been done. It's called Medicaid.

Why is there an obligation to provide it for everyone, even those with the means to provide for themselves?

If one can provide for themselves? Sure let them opt out. I am down with that. If they get sick, cant afford treatment and die? There fault for being thick as # and not buying coverage when they can afford it.

But your medicaid is woefully inadequate and needs a boost.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Willtell

Car Insurance?

I'm not mandated at birth to buy a ####ing car!

Look, if you can find a government that is filled with kind modest people who only want to help, then couple that with a population of people that are willing to work, aren't selfish and greedy, then socialism might work.

Might.

Sweden.

Problem is they where so keen to help they let half the middle east in and now its ruined.

Yes, well and now you are lecturing us where we have already let in 1/4 of Mexico and good chunks of many S. American countries, not counting the ones who have come here illegally from Asia, Africa, and even parts of Europe.

You are pretty much talking about what used to be a culturally homogenous society where everyone was more or less the same, and you are lecturing a society that is much larger than yours that has always been much more multi-ethnic and less coherent.

And your excuse now is that you have become multi-ethnic so your own so-called perfect situation is ruined?

That's hilarious in a sad way.

Swedens not my home country its Britain ( a dump like the USA).

And yeah, Sweden did work until there government let in half the world. Which says alot about multiculturalism and how it weakens a society if done wrong.

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Here's what confuses me.

Some people want a socialist-styled government.

They want to use the Constitution and election process to create that.

But in order to maintain that, they'd have to get rid of the Constitution in order to keep it.

So, in essence, they are using our free society to eliminate our free society.

Why does it have to be a choice between hard capitalism or hard socialism?

Countrys run into problems they swing to one extreme or the other.

Because once an entitlement program is in place, it is impossible to eliminate it.

"All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take."

- Mahatma Gandhi

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Here's what confuses me.

Some people want a socialist-styled government.

They want to use the Constitution and election process to create that.

But in order to maintain that, they'd have to get rid of the Constitution in order to keep it.

So, in essence, they are using our free society to eliminate our free society.

Why does it have to be a choice between hard capitalism or hard socialism?

Countrys run into problems they swing to one extreme or the other.

Because once an entitlement program is in place, it is impossible to eliminate it.

"All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take."

- Mahatma Gandhi

Social programs can be eliminated just fine.

Just come to the UK where our disabled are starving, dying in unheated homes and killing themselfs in large numbers.

a reply to: InsaneIthorian

Your government is doing that, yet you want to double-down and promote MORE authority to the government.

It makes no sense.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: InsaneIthorian

Your government is doing that, yet you want to double-down and promote MORE authority to the government.

It makes no sense.

No. As someone in the center I just ask for common sense.
Provide adequately for the disabled, provide healthcare and a short term (3 month safety net).

Thats it and what 90% of brits want.

Problem is it has to be one extreme or the other.

Either you get libral nut jobs that want to provide everything and anything from a magic money Tree or heartless torys that want to send us back to the victorian ages.

A middle is what I want, not extremes.

a reply to: InsaneIthorian

Asking government for common sense is like asking a hooker not to fake orgasms.

You get what you pay for.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: InsaneIthorian

Asking government for common sense is like asking a hooker not to fake orgasms.

You get what you pay for.

Except there are countrys that provide a higher standard of living and have higher happness than both our countrys.

a reply to: InsaneIthorian

Nations aren't cookies or socks.

One size does not fit all.

Our Constitution is pretty important to us. If socialism was something agreeable to that document, we'd have had it 100 years ago.

here's what thomas jefferson says about it:

To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

so no socialized healthcare is not guaranteed and would be considered a threat to the constitution and disrupt the checks & balances. do you want universal healthcare or liberty? you can't have both.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: InsaneIthorian

Nations aren't cookies or socks.

One size does not fit all.

Our Constitution is pretty important to us. If socialism was something agreeable to that document, we'd have had it 100 years ago.

Fine.

If your happy with lower standards of living and national happness? Well your country.

And your constitution does not forbide basic welfare or saftey nets. Does not mandate them either so its left down to your representatives.

As for socialism? Basic safety nets is not true socialism. Something i disgree with my the way.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

True evil is in domination subjugation oppression, not in failing to give handouts. 

Providing basic medical care is not giving handouts. You think that only people who have $150 to go visit a practitioner are deserving of receiving medical care? Because that's what it reads like.

There are organizations out there that help the unemployed and homeless find jobs. They approach these people and give them information on available work and even help them set up an interview.

But before they do, they first make sure the candidate has a good meal, a shower and clean change of appropriate clothing. Know why? Because if they sent the person in for an interview wearing filthy clothes, with dirty skin and smelly hair, it is extremely likely that the candidate would not be considered for the job. Is that a "handout"? Absolutely not. It's a hand UP.


The same works for basic health care needs. You cannot expect a person who is struggling financially already to magically become successful and productive if they are chronically ill with something because they lack the resources to simply go to the doctor and get treatment. Eventually, whatever is making them sick will worsen to the point where they are physically unable to perform ordinary tasks. They miss too much work, and suddenly they're out of a job.

No job equals no money for housing, transportation, food and other basic human needs. This is one of the most common reasons that people have to turn to welfare in order to survive. We don't need more unemployed people on welfare in this country.

If we expect everyone to be productive members of society, then we have to allow for the simple fact that getting back on one's feet is a process. We need to take care of basic needs so that people will flourish, rather than fail. Make sure people are healthy and fed.

Millions of physicians donate their time to free clinics all over the country. They do it because they want everyone to have adequate healthcare and don't mind giving their services to people in need without expecting anything in return. Our government should take a page from their book, because these guys know that when people are sick and unable to care for themselves, they cannot care for anyone else either, and they certainly can't go to work in that condition.

It's not a handout of there's truly a need. We've got people dying of perfectly treatable illnesses and people starving or sleeping out in the weather because they have no roof; and we've got other people with so much excess and so much arrogance because of it that they actually think it's OK to belittle and dismiss those people and their needs as insignificant, beneath contempt...to the point of deeming them unworthy of basic human needs like food, shelter and medical assistance when they're sick. This should not be. Money should not be a deciding factor in determining what simple needs should be met or not.

It's not evil, it's greed (which I guess is it's own kind of evil) and the mindset that "I've got mine, to hell with everybody else". A victim mentality, that they are somehow being "deprived", in order that others might survive. They can't have that. Don't even like the idea of it.

Believe me. Sad. Shame shame shame.

a reply to: InsaneIthorian

you presume that I have a low standard of living.



In my country, the standard of living is dependent upon the individual and NOT the government or the collective.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: InsaneIthorian

you presume that I have a low standard of living.

In my country, the standard of living is dependent upon the individual and NOT the government or the collective.

If you say so

Just always keep in mind what happens in countrys where the gap between haves and haves not grow to big.

I am in the "haves" category and recognise that I am out numbered 99 to 1. Not good odds for me.

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: InsaneIthorian

you presume that I have a low standard of living.

In my country, the standard of living is dependent upon the individual and NOT the government or the collective.

If you say so

Just always keep in mind what happens in countrys where the gap between haves and haves not grow to big.

I am in the "haves" category and recognise that I am out numbered 99 to 1. Not good odds for me.

That's always been the case.

There will always be those that opt for stealing over working for what they want.

let's put it this way, once the state has a grip on your life it will do as it pleases and you will be too afraid of losing your or your child's healthcare to stop it.