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.

 

Healthcare is 'a privilege...not a right': GOP lawmaker

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
To those that hold health care is a fundamental right:

I ask, where does it end? Again, does not everyone then have the right to food and shelter? What about other basic needs? I need to bathe every so often to maintain a hygienic lifestyle. Does not the government have an obligation to provide me with soap and toilet-paper? I need shoes, shouldn’t I have those provided? I need to stay informed as a responsible citizen: shouldn’t the government provide me with free t.v., cable and newspapers? I need gas for my car to be able to go to work and pay my taxes for ‘free’ health care for others: shouldn’t the government provide that so that I can fulfill my ‘obligation’? Where does it end?!

For every demand you have, I can come up with one myself. Are you willing to pay for my toothpaste, lunch and garbage bags (all basic necessities!) ? If we continue down this path we shall all end up as mere slaves to the government – the ultimate plantation owner. We shall all be beholden because we must obey in order to receive our upkeep. I for one don’t wish to live like that.




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I know that is how you feel and trust me I welcome the challenge to be able to debate that fact, what will be if we were to agree on everything in this boards, we all be bored to death.


So I will disagree with you on that one but please is just part of the discussion of the issue no personally my friend.


In our nation we pay tax money as a tax payer I expect to see something coming back to me than just more tax money been gouge out of me to be squandered on what the government deems necessary, like bailing out failures.

See my point here.
congress has not problem leaching the tax payer but what we get back, nothing but more hardships and higher deficit and more people unable to afford health insurance.

See when that people get critical ill to the point that their care is extremely expensive, you and me and all the tax payer in the nation will be footing the bill anyway



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by passenger
 


If you are a taxpayer you are footing the bill for those that do not have it anyway.

So that is what you have to look at, people do get sick with insurance or not and they will have to receive health care at one point of another, sadly by the time the uninsured gets medical care their problems are chronic costing more money to the tax payer.

Just look at illegal immigrants, do you think that because they are illegal their born American children get born in their homes, NO, they get to be born in hospitals and you and me foot the bill anyway.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer


Cost is part of the issue, I agree. However there is no better solution.

Would you suggest that governments step in to limit the amount a company or doctor can charge for their services?


Yes, I do. Just like they should be limiting the million dollar bonuses that CEO's earn.


Because aside from being unconstitutional and immoral (in my opinion), it will also lead to:

a. poorer quality of healthcare- why bother when there's no competition (ie price cap).


So, you are saying Dr.'s only become Dr.'s for the money? How sad is that! What ever happened to the hypocratic oath?


b. poorer quality of doctors - why bother with 8 years of school; 8 years of specialization to reach only a paltry income?


Have you been to a Dr. lately? Why is it that so many foreign Dr.'s have practices in the U.S.? How many of them are actually schooled for 8 years in the states? I don't know about you, but the last HMO I had, did not have any Dr.'s I could see that were even from the U.S.


c. less research into drugs, fewer breakthroughs etc. For every billion dollar blockbuster that Merck produces, they have 10 failed drugs that cost them tens of millions of dollars.


I think that's a great topic for another thread. Why are our tax dollars going into these companies who make profits off of drugs for research, when consistantly they produce crap products that actually make people sicker, causing them to see Dr.'s? Do you see where I am going with this? Everyone has their hand in the till, from Pharma, to insurance, to Dr.'s. Crazy isn't it?


In essence, the market is finely balanced to take into consideration all those factors. Imposing a dictatorial cap on costs will inevitably lead to a diminished quality of care.


I don't agree. If the market was balanced, everyone would be able to afford health care and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.







[edit on 6-3-2009 by Blanca Rose]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I don't disagree with you about the waste of taxpayers' money.

The bailout should never have happened. I was against it and always will be.

But you lefties have to stop bloody using it as an excuse to support other programs which are also wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. The bailout doesn't serve as justification for any other government programs which "are more moral".


The bailout only proved one thing: that government is an ass; that they have no responsibility and they don't give a flying **** about taxpayers' money. This will not change miraculously overnight with socialized healthcare. They will take every chance they get to piss taxpayers's (ie rich people's) money up the wall, they will give you an inferior quality of care and they will increase your taxes to pay for their spending spree.

Take it from someone who lives in a country with socialized healthcare- it ain't so great. The amount of tax I have to pay is murderous and heinous. I will never, ever recieve good value for money for my taxes. There's no reason that the USA will not follow the same trend.

reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


I'm sorry but your proposals just wouldn't work. For reasons too complex to explain, it just wouldn't.

The majority of doctors go into medicine for a combination of reasons. A decent salary is a major consideration. Any doctor who doesn't care about salary wouldn't be working in the US, they would be working for Medecines Sans Frontieres.

I'm highly offended by your suggestion that the entire healthcare research system is an expensive fraud. I speak from within the industry, and I know the products that we produce save lives. 5-10 years of clincal trials have to take place before a drug can be released to the public.

The market is balanced to take care of what's natural. In nature, the weak die. In a market economy, the poor suffer. Its the natural order of things. If you disagree with the utilization of a market economy, then you would be better suited in a place like Cuba, Venezuela etc. They have universal healthcare, central planning and controls. I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying they have a different way of doing things.

The USA however, should be a constitutional republic based on the libertarian principles of market supremacy. The US shouldn't be considered a democracy, and as such the whims of the voters shouldn't be able to enact anti-market policies.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


You expect to see something coming back to you? I think everyone feels that way. But, you aren't entitled to anything material from the government. None of us are.

Like you, I hate all the bailouts and spending DC is doing now.....it falls in line with my opinion that the government is not responsible for propping anyone up or keeping anyone from failing. Business or individual.

Like Passenger, though, I have to wonder where it ends. If health care is a "right", then what else is a fundamental human right? Houses? Cars?? Clothes?? Food?? Education??




[edit on 3/6/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I agree with you in many issue you know that, but when it comes to health care my friend I am one that while hate what government had become I agree with free health care for all that is an issue that I support with all my hart.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



What do you mean? I am in the UK now, and I have been sick, so I went to a Doctor.

I HAVE TO PAY, and can be fined via an agreement with my own government.

So what the heck are you talking about man?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Universal Health Care is a mark of a civilized society, and taxes are the price one pays for civilization. In my opinion, anything else less is barbarism.


For what little we UK citizens pay in National Insurance, the National Health Service is excellent value for money...and without it I wouldn't be here today

Gawd bless Beveridge and his vision of a truely civilised society



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


I'm sorry, but forcing anyone to do work, or the opposite of the equation that is "the right to healthcare", is tantamount to murder in my eyes.

I don't care why a doctor became a doctor, only that he charges with transperency, does his job well, and is held accountable as a business and doctor if he violates either of those principles.

The only rights I have, expect, or want have been granted to me by God and the U.S. constitution.

All other demands should be cross referenced against the above list.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
What about having a volunteer tax to pay for health care? You know, like a national lottery or something. Most people just love lotteries and slot machines and all that junk. Why not start a national lottery to pay for health care? That way, the people who don't want to pay the tax don't have to, and those who want to use the national lottery health care system are free to do so even if they don't play the lottery. Private health care providers would still be in business, too. Maybe. Or would the national lottery health care system cripple them?

Or maybe legalize marijuana and hemp and '___' and mushrooms and tax those sales and use that tax money for some kinda free health care program. Or is that socialism? I have no idea.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by citizen smith
 


I saw a documentary on how the health care works in your country and I have to admit is sounds very good to me.

Here in the US the private sector had done an excellent job of lobbying against it and the whores in Washington love their pimps money.

The propaganda against free health care is just incredible and all the money is funded by big private interest also.

That is something that people tend to forget about, who is working behind the scene to give universal health care a bad name.

The last person they have at hart is the citizens and consumers in the nation.

As long as they are making a killing who cares who lives or die.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer

The majority of doctors go into medicine for a combination of reasons. A decent salary is a major consideration. Any doctor who doesn't care about salary wouldn't be working in the US, they would be working for Medecines Sans Frontieres.


Oh, I only know this to well, since the last Dr. I worked for was from Pakistan.


I'm highly offended by your suggestion that the entire healthcare research system is an expensive fraud. I speak from within the industry, and I know the products that we produce save lives. 5-10 years of clincal trials have to take place before a drug can be released to the public.


Oh, so they aren't just in it for the money, as you suggested above in regards to Dr.'s? Sorry, as I mentioned in another thread, I have seen with my own eyes, the kind of perks Dr.'s get for pushing certain drugs. I have seen with my own eyes how Dr.'s are wooed by pharmacuetical companies. I have seen how a Dr. will leave patients sitting for hours waiting for an appointment, while and unexpected drug rep shows up, and suggests going out to lunch. While the whole industry may not be an expensive fraud, can you honestly say that most drugs produced to cure one thing, don't cause other problems? The ball keeps on rolling! What medication, of any sort, produced by any pharmaceutical company has ever cured anything? If you are privy to the industry, I'd really be interested in knowing. That would be a cure, that did not cause any side affects or other illnesses.


The market is balanced to take care of what's natural. In nature, the weak die. In a market economy, the poor suffer. Its the natural order of things.


Sure, then how do you explain that this logic is no longer working?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jasonjnelson

The only rights I have, expect, or want have been granted to me by God and the U.S. constitution.

All other demands should be cross referenced against the above list.


So, would you rather see your tax dollars spent on things like war, or health insurance for the masses.

I'm just curios, based on your statement above.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


Well I'm not in the big pharma sector so I wouldn't know. I do have reservations about big pharma, such as their research into non-lifesaving drugs rather than anti-malaria treatments etc... but they are private enterprises and so have a god given right to decide what they want to do. I have no right, no inclination and no will to interfere just because I disagree with them.

If you don't like pharmaceuticals because of their side effects etc, then don't take them. See how long you live without a life saving drug...


Sure, then how do you explain that this logic is no longer working?


It is working... the poor are suffering. Are you suggesting otherwise?



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 





I have seen with my own eyes, the kind of perks Dr.'s get for pushing certain drugs. I have seen with my own eyes how Dr.'s are wooed by pharmacuetical companies. I have seen how a Dr. will leave patients sitting for hours waiting for an appointment, while and unexpected drug rep shows up, and suggests going out to lunch.


Do you think this will actually improve if the government takes over health care? If anything, it will get worse. Fewer doctors (probably), more patients, and a lot more hassle all around.

They aren't talking about taking over the pharma companies, so those reps will still do what they do now. And, the doctors will still meet with them and push the med, especially if the rep offers perks to go along with it.

[edit on 3/6/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer That's such a glib phrase... it's actually a cop-out. You're not arguing any factual points, you're just demeaning the other side by inferring that we are uncivilised and barbaric.

I find your collectivist notions of free healthcare unworkable and despicable.


I got cured of cancer for $32 out of pocket. I wish the same for you and yours should you ever be in need.

There is absolutely nothing that I can add to that statement if it does not make complete sense to you.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Anyone besides me see the hypocrisy in Rep. Zach Wamp saying that
health care isn't a right when.....

It's the American Taxpayer paying for his health care.

I want the same kind of health care that my congressmen and Reps enjoy at my expense. Is that to much to ask?

[edit on 6-3-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


They also receive tax payer dollars for the development of live saving drugs.

But they spend millions of dollars a year like pimps to keep congress pushing bills in their favor.

Probably the same tax dollars that they get from government.

And this is how the pay back the tax payer with congress approval


2008
On Jan. 1, the administration of vaccines (in addition to the cost of the vaccine itself) is included in the coverage of Medicare Part D drugs.

In June, House Democrats announce plans to introduce legislation preventing FDA regulation from trumping medical device patients' ability to seek damages under state law.
.

NO wonder they spend so much money to keep the people in the nation missinformed about the benefits of universal health care.

They will lost billions of dollars on their littler medical scams.


Washington, June 24, 2008 – Washington's largest lobby, the pharmaceutical industry, racked up another banner year on Capitol Hill in 2007, backed by a record $168 million lobbying effort, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of federal lobbying data. Among the industry's successes: getting two controversial laws extended and thwarting congressional efforts to restrict media ads for prescription drugs.


Despicable!!!!!

projects.publicintegrity.org...

Still they careless what drugs they push on the consumer as long as they are milking the cows that we people has become to them.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


War.





[edit on 6-3-2009 by jasonjnelson]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join