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.

 

I think universal healthcare is stupid

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick


More often than not universal healthcare is the stamp of a decadent society.


Quite the contrary, LesMis. It is the mark of a society that has risen to provide and ensure its populace is cared for.


How many have you cared for? You pay a tax. You neither provide or care for anyone. Instead you pretend.


Tax is how societies pay for things they collectively decide on. Deciding that everyone deserves a minimum standard of healthcare is no.more decadentvthan deciding to have infrastructure or a military.



Then You tell yourself you are ensuring others get healthcare, without actually ensuring others get healthcare.

You pay a tax. That’s the very least you can do for others.


I also don't build roads, arrest people, fight fires etc.

Do you really think things would be better if we all did these things individually?


Imagine if people got together and built roads, arrested people, fought fires? Imagine if people provided healthcare for the ill?

You wouldn’t need to pay a tax.

My argument is getting the government to do all this for is a mark of decadence, that it absolves you from an responsibility to your community and fellow man.


Yes let's imagine.

People dying of preventable diseases, vigilante justice and dirt tracks.

No thanks, I like taxes and civilisation.


You like not having to do anything for your community. Pay the government to do it for you.




posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: ScepticScot

Maybe just maybe I had a family friend in Scotland (in Ayre) that went through just that. He was offered by my family full room and board and even payment for the care that was available for his condition in the US. But because he was over 70 at the time his "expected" life was lower, and he was put into the quoted care system. AKA denied care that would have kept him alive and healthy. The fella was too proud to admit that NHS failed him, and said no to my family's offer.


Care would have not been given if there wasn't a prospect of success or improving quality of life.

Basing such things on medical decisions rather than ability to pay seem much better to me.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: dubiousatworst

HEY!!!

I can make up anecdotal stories too and pass them off as proof for just about anything I want!



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dubiousatworst

What was wrong with the old gentleman if you don't mind me asking?

Possibly i missed it.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dubiousatworst

What was wrong with the old gentleman if you don't mind me asking?

Possibly i missed it.



He had a terminal case of "Made-up-initis"



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Ahhh good old les....


Canadian healthcare must be better than I thought as it keeps resurrecting a departed poster...


Can’t make it through an argument without calling others names. I’m American.




There was no name calliing l thought you were Canadian. That must have been a different poster...

You on the other hand are insulting others rather than debating.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick


More often than not universal healthcare is the stamp of a decadent society.


Quite the contrary, LesMis. It is the mark of a society that has risen to provide and ensure its populace is cared for.


How many have you cared for? You pay a tax. You neither provide or care for anyone. Instead you pretend.


Tax is how societies pay for things they collectively decide on. Deciding that everyone deserves a minimum standard of healthcare is no.more decadentvthan deciding to have infrastructure or a military.



Then You tell yourself you are ensuring others get healthcare, without actually ensuring others get healthcare.

You pay a tax. That’s the very least you can do for others.


I also don't build roads, arrest people, fight fires etc.

Do you really think things would be better if we all did these things individually?


Imagine if people got together and built roads, arrested people, fought fires? Imagine if people provided healthcare for the ill?

You wouldn’t need to pay a tax.

My argument is getting the government to do all this for is a mark of decadence, that it absolves you from an responsibility to your community and fellow man.


Yes let's imagine.

People dying of preventable diseases, vigilante justice and dirt tracks.

No thanks, I like taxes and civilisation.


You like not having to do anything for your community. Pay the government to do it for you.


Cool if you ever take unwell come round my place and I will perform surgery on you.

We can then talk about whose idea works best*

* assuming your aren't dead, in coma etc.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Ahhh good old les....


Canadian healthcare must be better than I thought as it keeps resurrecting a departed poster...


Can’t make it through an argument without calling others names. I’m American.




There was no name calliing l thought you were Canadian. That must have been a different poster...

You on the other hand are insulting others rather than debating.



I am not. I’m making an argument that taxes takes the burden of care off one another and delegates it to the government, leaving us unable to care for one another and provide for ourselves. It infantilizes us overtime, and is a mark of decadence.

No insult intended.
edit on 27-7-2019 by BuckyWunderlick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick


More often than not universal healthcare is the stamp of a decadent society.


Quite the contrary, LesMis. It is the mark of a society that has risen to provide and ensure its populace is cared for.


How many have you cared for? You pay a tax. You neither provide or care for anyone. Instead you pretend.


Tax is how societies pay for things they collectively decide on. Deciding that everyone deserves a minimum standard of healthcare is no.more decadentvthan deciding to have infrastructure or a military.



Then You tell yourself you are ensuring others get healthcare, without actually ensuring others get healthcare.

You pay a tax. That’s the very least you can do for others.


I also don't build roads, arrest people, fight fires etc.

Do you really think things would be better if we all did these things individually?


Imagine if people got together and built roads, arrested people, fought fires? Imagine if people provided healthcare for the ill?

You wouldn’t need to pay a tax.

My argument is getting the government to do all this for is a mark of decadence, that it absolves you from an responsibility to your community and fellow man.


Yes let's imagine.

People dying of preventable diseases, vigilante justice and dirt tracks.

No thanks, I like taxes and civilisation.


You like not having to do anything for your community. Pay the government to do it for you.


Cool if you ever take unwell come round my place and I will perform surgery on you.

We can then talk about whose idea works best*

* assuming your aren't dead, in coma etc.


Les, I don't recommend it he done my circumcision and.... well now I call myself Amy and only do pee-pee sitting down.
edit on 27-7-2019 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick


More often than not universal healthcare is the stamp of a decadent society.


Quite the contrary, LesMis. It is the mark of a society that has risen to provide and ensure its populace is cared for.


How many have you cared for? You pay a tax. You neither provide or care for anyone. Instead you pretend.


Tax is how societies pay for things they collectively decide on. Deciding that everyone deserves a minimum standard of healthcare is no.more decadentvthan deciding to have infrastructure or a military.



Then You tell yourself you are ensuring others get healthcare, without actually ensuring others get healthcare.

You pay a tax. That’s the very least you can do for others.


I also don't build roads, arrest people, fight fires etc.

Do you really think things would be better if we all did these things individually?


Imagine if people got together and built roads, arrested people, fought fires? Imagine if people provided healthcare for the ill?

You wouldn’t need to pay a tax.

My argument is getting the government to do all this for is a mark of decadence, that it absolves you from an responsibility to your community and fellow man.


Yes let's imagine.

People dying of preventable diseases, vigilante justice and dirt tracks.

No thanks, I like taxes and civilisation.


You like not having to do anything for your community. Pay the government to do it for you.


Cool if you ever take unwell come round my place and I will perform surgery on you.

We can then talk about whose idea works best*

* assuming your aren't dead, in coma etc.


I’d rather pay a professional. You’d rather pay the government.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I certainly can't speak of other countries health systems except to say all are with structural faults that allow financial abuse in one form or another.

I'm not for government "paid" healthcare here in U.S. as it promotes inflated and abusive behavior by first, second and third parties with there hand in the till.

Just look at higher education cost as an example showing what happened when government guaranteed "no loss" system for providers and lenders - sky is the limit for them with recourse for those recipients of this so-called right.

Healthcare is/will go same way.

One look at "insurance" with its guaranteed 10% return regardless cost and outcomes and resultant removal of cost controls should paint that picture, one that has costs far outpacing inflation rate year over year.

Government does have a role to serve were it to live up to mandate of serving everyone's and the nation's interests rather than "few" who can afford to pay off legislators.

Simple invoke all applicable anti-trust, consumer protection, price gouging, anti-monopolistic and anti-competitive laws existing in federal and state law for more than a century. Supreme Court in two prior cases ruled this industry has no immunity from these laws.

Result - you'd have virtually nof need for insurance for any routine Healthcare and cheap catastrophic coverage for major events.

No need to soak anyone nor go without care, this step of course removes corporate and government power over your destiny.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick


More often than not universal healthcare is the stamp of a decadent society.


Quite the contrary, LesMis. It is the mark of a society that has risen to provide and ensure its populace is cared for.


How many have you cared for? You pay a tax. You neither provide or care for anyone. Instead you pretend.


Tax is how societies pay for things they collectively decide on. Deciding that everyone deserves a minimum standard of healthcare is no.more decadentvthan deciding to have infrastructure or a military.



Then You tell yourself you are ensuring others get healthcare, without actually ensuring others get healthcare.

You pay a tax. That’s the very least you can do for others.


I also don't build roads, arrest people, fight fires etc.

Do you really think things would be better if we all did these things individually?


Imagine if people got together and built roads, arrested people, fought fires? Imagine if people provided healthcare for the ill?

You wouldn’t need to pay a tax.

My argument is getting the government to do all this for is a mark of decadence, that it absolves you from an responsibility to your community and fellow man.


Yes let's imagine.

People dying of preventable diseases, vigilante justice and dirt tracks.

No thanks, I like taxes and civilisation.


You like not having to do anything for your community. Pay the government to do it for you.


Cool if you ever take unwell come round my place and I will perform surgery on you.

We can then talk about whose idea works best*

* assuming your aren't dead, in coma etc.


Les, I don't recommend it he done my circumcision and.... well now I call myself Amy and only do pee-pee sitting down.


But you look great in a dress so it all worked out in the end.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
The problem with the "right" to healthcare is that it creates a whole class of slaves, those who provide it. If your "right" depends on the labor of others, it isn't a "right" at all. If you force me to labor on your behalf, I'm a slave.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

We will pay them no matter what happens.

May as well get something out of it for everyone aka the NHS.

Helps millions of us survive that would otherwise be dead.

Just ask any recipient of an organ transplant should you require clarification.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick


More often than not universal healthcare is the stamp of a decadent society.


Quite the contrary, LesMis. It is the mark of a society that has risen to provide and ensure its populace is cared for.


How many have you cared for? You pay a tax. You neither provide or care for anyone. Instead you pretend.


Tax is how societies pay for things they collectively decide on. Deciding that everyone deserves a minimum standard of healthcare is no.more decadentvthan deciding to have infrastructure or a military.



Then You tell yourself you are ensuring others get healthcare, without actually ensuring others get healthcare.

You pay a tax. That’s the very least you can do for others.


I also don't build roads, arrest people, fight fires etc.

Do you really think things would be better if we all did these things individually?


Imagine if people got together and built roads, arrested people, fought fires? Imagine if people provided healthcare for the ill?

You wouldn’t need to pay a tax.

My argument is getting the government to do all this for is a mark of decadence, that it absolves you from an responsibility to your community and fellow man.


Yes let's imagine.

People dying of preventable diseases, vigilante justice and dirt tracks.

No thanks, I like taxes and civilisation.


You like not having to do anything for your community. Pay the government to do it for you.


Cool if you ever take unwell come round my place and I will perform surgery on you.

We can then talk about whose idea works best*

* assuming your aren't dead, in coma etc.


I’d rather pay a professional. You’d rather pay the government.


And people who can't afford to pay?

Society can decide that everyone is entitled to certain things. That isn't a sign of decadence, you remember your original claim.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

We will pay them no matter what happens.

May as well get something out of it for everyone aka the NHS.

Helps millions of us survive that would otherwise be dead.

Just ask any recipient of an organ transplant should you require clarification.


I can’t imagine how you survived before the NHS. Just dropping like flies. Millions dying. Certainly you weren’t the greatest empire in history.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
The problem with the "right" to healthcare is that it creates a whole class of slaves, those who provide it. If your "right" depends on the labor of others, it isn't a "right" at all. If you force me to labor on your behalf, I'm a slave.


Is there something special about healthcare that creates slaves as opposed to police, military, teachers etc?



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick


More often than not universal healthcare is the stamp of a decadent society.


Quite the contrary, LesMis. It is the mark of a society that has risen to provide and ensure its populace is cared for.


How many have you cared for? You pay a tax. You neither provide or care for anyone. Instead you pretend.


Tax is how societies pay for things they collectively decide on. Deciding that everyone deserves a minimum standard of healthcare is no.more decadentvthan deciding to have infrastructure or a military.



Then You tell yourself you are ensuring others get healthcare, without actually ensuring others get healthcare.

You pay a tax. That’s the very least you can do for others.


I also don't build roads, arrest people, fight fires etc.

Do you really think things would be better if we all did these things individually?


Imagine if people got together and built roads, arrested people, fought fires? Imagine if people provided healthcare for the ill?

You wouldn’t need to pay a tax.

My argument is getting the government to do all this for is a mark of decadence, that it absolves you from an responsibility to your community and fellow man.


Yes let's imagine.

People dying of preventable diseases, vigilante justice and dirt tracks.

No thanks, I like taxes and civilisation.


You like not having to do anything for your community. Pay the government to do it for you.


Cool if you ever take unwell come round my place and I will perform surgery on you.

We can then talk about whose idea works best*

* assuming your aren't dead, in coma etc.


I’d rather pay a professional. You’d rather pay the government.


And people who can't afford to pay?

Society can decide that everyone is entitled to certain things. That isn't a sign of decadence, you remember your original claim.


That’s when people get together and provide for healthcare for those unable to get it. You can still provide healthcare without delegating that responsibility to the government. But a decadent society would much rather pay a tax than help its own.



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Not me but my brother would not have survived but a few months without heart surgery, nor the stroke he had at 17, or the heart transplant he required at around 32. We simply could never have afforded those necessities without our NHS.

As to the empire well, 2rds of the world is rather shameful to hold sway over.

You do realize it's your empire now, or at least America is at the helm, shame the same banker bastards that own our nation also own your federal reserve banking system.

What a fecking predicament eh?
edit on 27-7-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick




That’s when people get together and provide for healthcare for those unable to get it.


Ahhh right so you've been paying for everyone else to get the health care they require then?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join