Why is 'everyone' on this board so against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S?, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 08:42 AM by LifeIsPeculiar

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

"I'm sure you will still be able to choose who your doctor is just as you can here in the NHS."

You should read the bill. You will be stripped of the "freedom of choice". You will be subject to the whims of government peons who will be making medical decisions purely from a monetary standpoint while reflecting upon your usefulness to society. As you age, you will become less useful. Congress included measures in the bill that excludes them from this plan. This is distinctly a division between the “Ruling Class” and the “Subjects”. This should be reason for alarm in the minds of Freedom-minded people.

You should resist the expansion of the Federal government. Where their power grows, yours shrinks. When they control everything, will you presume to be free? Do you really want a "Nanny State", where they make all of your life's decisions from cradle to grave? I personally have seen no instances of competence or concern for the citizens. After all, they collect their taxes with guns if need be, and then give what care that money could have brought to you to someone who doesn't work and pay their taxes. Everyone will get the same mediocre care, even those who shoulder the government load.

Good health care is available for all who work. Why should the "free" be robbed at gunpoint, stripped of their assets, so that those who "freeload" can have care? They don't care for themselves, but expect others to care in their stead?

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 08:45 AM by thisguyrighthere

Another reason to be against it is that we all saw the fed fail miserably at managing a few thousand people and their beat up cars coming in to get some voucher. Fail so miserably that the gov actually admitted failure and stopped the program. Gov never does that.

Excuse me if I'm less than confident in the gov handling 300 million people and their vital organs.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 02:08 PM by sharps

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

I too am from the UK and have also pondered this same question, and I think it's down to national psyche. The US began with an ideal of making a governement as small as possible. One that would interefere with peoples lives as little as possible. No government taxation without representation. While we in Europe grew out of feudalism where we turned to our lords and masters and royalty to look after us. I also believe there is another difference between us. If something is not working, is inefficient or corrupt, many Americans might say get rid of it, cut it out. Whereas in the UK and Europe I believe the attitude is more like it's broken lets try and fix it because we're in this together.

just my two cents.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 02:13 PM by Animal

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

The right-wing libertarian fringe is ALWAYS looking for reasons to point out the failing of the US government.

A dogmatic approach that systematically refuses to see any worth or capacity for the 'good' that the government performs.

As was the case during the Bush Administration I think the time has come to simply ask those who reside in this dogmatic slumber to find new home. One that embraces their ideals.

Perhaps Somalia, a country that has been 'government free' for a decade would be an ideal spot for you all to relocate to.

The government of the USA is in no way perfect, that is clear, but it is also not a complete failure or completely evil entitiy.

There is no reason to assume that progress and improvement can not be achieved.

The right-wing libertarian fringe wont address this because it flies in the face of their dogma. To this group there is only a negative outlook. This group is a defeatist lot who fears the potential for positive outcomes as such outcomes threaten the legitimacy of their system of beliefs.

IMHO they should simply be ignored until the time comes that they choose to participate in logical and open debate.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Animal]

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 02:18 PM by Jenna

Originally posted by Animal

IMHO they should simply be ignored until the time comes that they choose to participate in logical and open debate.

I like how you think that everyone who disagrees with you is unworthy of discussing anything with and should be ignored. That kind of thinking says a lot about a person.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 03:38 PM by daddyroo45

reply to post by Animal

What GOOD has the Government done? What social programs are there that haven't lead to demoralization,debasement and dispair for the people that recieve "help".

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 04:08 PM by ANNED

i am not against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S.

what i am against is the loss of VA veterans health care when the government decides they no longer needs the VA health care system because the Veterans can just go to there local hospital for care and a all the "doctors at all hospitals" will be so highly trained to spot the "special health problems and needs of veterans".

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 04:25 PM by Animal

reply to post by daddyroo45

off the top of my head, how about student grants and loans. i loved mine and thank my lucky stars everyday the government was there to help me get educated.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 04:48 PM by OhZone

We are against it because we don't want the fiddling fingers of the ######## in government taking our money and giving it to the useless eaters who will never take the responsibility for their own lives.

I workedd hard and saved so that I could have a comfortable retirement and I am angered that they want me to make sacrifices contributing to those who have not.

Those poor will always be with us and we are getting very tired of supporting them.
I would however be willing to contribute to sterilization proceedures for them all.

40 million without health care/insurance.
It used to be a lot more than that.
I'm not sure when this "health insurance" thing came into being.

Seems that sometime in the 50's Blue Cross Blue Shield was born and everyone was told that Medical expenses were going up----and they did.

THere was a big propaganda campaign scaring people by telling them that 1 of 4 people would have a serious and expensive medical problem (or accident)

And as these propaganda campaigns go 1 out of 4 people obliged and fulfilled the prediction.

Hospitals used to be Non-Profit, and almost everyone could afford the usual Toncillectomies & Appendectomies and Baby Birthings.

And all was free for the poor.

But then the Hopitals became Profit Making Ventures.
THey added telephones by each bed and a TV set. Maybe now they have computers and internet?

And of course raised their prices.
So now the way it is almost NO ONE can afford to even go to the emergency room for stitches to a bleeding wound.

And if you are likely to have a heart attack, you would do your spouse a favor and die at home because she/he would lose everything paying the Hospital expenses. And that could be just the co-pay.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 04:56 PM by resist2012

It's not about expanding our health care, or a reform, it's about what he is actually doing with it. He is for a universal health care plan. Everyone gets the same benefits, regardless of how hard you work in your life to better what you have, etc. Universal, meaning ONE standard, for EVERYONE.

And, I am fairly sure, many people who speak out against Obama's health care reform, are current or prior military. Being active duty myself, I already know what universal health care means. Everyone in the military knows that army health care sucks. REALLY sucks. Military health care is universal health care. It's nothing new.

First, If everyone receives the same health care at one cost, then they pay for doctors will drop, because they are not making as much money, because no one is paying much for their services.

When all doctors get paid the same, (and not much) they tend to not care as much, not do a good job, since well, as we all know, money is the incentive which drives us to excel, sure it would be nice if people tried their best for others out of the goodness of their heart, but, yeah, we all know that's a load of ****.

A friend of mine, who used to live in communist Russia, had told me once when we were talking about the universal health care. He was telling me a story about a common occurrence when you would go to the hospital in Russia. The doctor would usually ask you, "Would you like Russian health care? or GOOD health care" which basically means, "how much money are you willing to pay ME out of pocket?"

I admit, there are several problems with the health care system in this country, but free health care for everyone is not the answer. Nothing is free. Quantity is usually at the cost of quality. SOMEONE is going to be paying for it. And the ones who WON'T be paying, well, most of them are jobless, lazy, don't even try to contribute to society, living on welfare, drug abusers, etc... Not everyone, but well, we all know that there are many.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 04:58 PM by Animal

Originally posted by OhZone
Those poor will always be with us and we are getting very tired of supporting them.
I would however be willing to contribute to sterilization proceedures for them all.

To me this says is all. And I will not be reading any more of your material after reading this thought.

There was at least one other in the history of the world that thought like you, his name was Adolf Hitler.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 05:10 PM by Animal

Originally posted by resist2012
It's not about expanding our health care, or a reform, it's about what he is actually doing with it. He is for a universal health care plan. Everyone gets the same benefits, regardless of how hard you work in your life to better what you have, etc. Universal, meaning ONE standard, for EVERYONE.

You are wrong. PERIOD. Not only can you still buy any plan you would like from any provider HR3200 has LEVELS of coverage you can receive.

Also, this is not UNIVERSAL health care, they are merely proposing a PUBLIC OPTION which is nothing more than a insurance plan that can be bought from the GOVERNMENT.

I believe this is documented under Subsection B and C.

Originally posted by resist2012
And, I am fairly sure, many people who speak out against Obama's health care reform, are current or prior military. Being active duty myself, I already know what universal health care means. Everyone in the military knows that army health care sucks. REALLY sucks. Military health care is universal health care. It's nothing new.

From what I hear the VA is in disrepair and needs fixing. That is no reason to stand in the way of progress though. Sorry I don't buy it.

Originally posted by resist2012
First, If everyone receives the same health care at one cost, then they pay for doctors will drop, because they are not making as much money, because no one is paying much for their services.

Because they are not eliminating the private options this wont happen.

Originally posted by resist2012
When all doctors get paid the same, (and not much) they tend to not care as much, not do a good job, since well, as we all know, money is the incentive which drives us to excel, sure it would be nice if people tried their best for others out of the goodness of their heart, but, yeah, we all know that's a load of ****.

Just a argument based on NO reality and intended to SCARE people away from allowing the creation of a public option, which is NOT universal health care and is NOT socialized medicine.

Originally posted by resist2012
A friend of mine, who used to live in communist Russia, had told me once when we were talking about the universal health care. He was telling me a story about a common occurrence when you would go to the hospital in Russia. The doctor would usually ask you, "Would you like Russian health care? or GOOD health care" which basically means, "how much money are you willing to pay ME out of pocket?"

So funny, why do you keep talking about 'socialized health care' which is NOT being proposed in the USA. Though if it was look at this chart ranking quality of care by nation:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland

link

Originally posted by resist2012
I admit, there are several problems with the health care system in this country, but free health care for everyone is not the answer. Nothing is free. Quantity is usually at the cost of quality. SOMEONE is going to be paying for it. And the ones who WON'T be paying, well, most of them are jobless, lazy, don't even try to contribute to society, living on welfare, drug abusers, etc... Not everyone, but well, we all know that there are many.

Your right NOTHING is free and the PUBLIC OPTION will also NOT be free. I wonder where you got that idea?

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Animal]

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 06:28 PM by Devino

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by daddyroo45

off the top of my head, how about student grants and loans. i loved mine and thank my lucky stars everyday the government was there to help me get educated.

In response to your replies in this thread I want to say I like the way you think, or should I say I am glad there are people like you that actually do think.

I quoted this reply of yours to daddyroo45 to help add a few things the US government has done in the past that was good in my opinion. I cannot believe that anyone would seriously ask a question like that.

We helped a bit in WW2.
Built most all of the freeways and highways.
NOAA
NASA
Army Corps of Engineers might have done a few things.
Built the electrical power grid and numerous projects like the Hoover dam.
Built a myriad of schools, hospitals, museums, parks and recreation areas.
FCC
FDA
The internet communication.
Satellite communication.

And those are just off the top of my head.

Our government has many problems but complaining about how bad it is and ignoring what's good is perpetuating the problem. It's OK if people don't actually want to think for themselves because it's too hard but it's not OK to complain about everything and do nothing to change it. The least people can do is think for themselves.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 06:48 PM by Leo Strauss

reply to post by Devino

Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
FDA to monitor food and drug quality
Grants responsible for funding University research programs e.g. National Institute of Health etc
Safety standards in the workplace -OSHA
Center for Disease Control
Police
Fire
Minimum Wage and Workers Rights
Social Security

The list is huge for any fair minded person.

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 06:55 PM by Pathos

Originally posted by tgidkp
from a purely ideological perspective (which is often not practical), i offer these points:

1. i didnt ask to come to this planet, but i somehow ended up here. as an unwitting participant in this game, i DEMAND that the most very basic life-sustaining provisions be made available to me at no cost. (this is really not asking for much.)

2. for those of you ("NOTHING IS FREE") whom think this is some kind of impossible burden i say this: if we as a planet could manage to get our act together, there is PLENTY FOR ALL.

Instead of approaching this through bashing, I will address the above bold statement differently.

Here is my answer:
"Life is a privilege. Its not a God given right."

Even though I'm starting off fresh, (large tuition bill and all), I understand my personal responsibility to obtain my own health care. Living is not easy, nor does it have an instruction manual. Over the course of my life, I learned that 'I am responsible for my own success.' I entered college so I can carry out 'my own ambitions'. Every dime I spend towards my college loan is an investment into myself. While studying psychology of adjustment, I bumped into an interesting field of study. Even though it only took up one chapter in the textbook, I kind of agree with the driving force behind the field. I wrote a thesis on the subject, and I think the field speaks volumes to this subject.

Existential Psychology is the belief that we are all free, and that it is at such a level where it leaves us vulnerable to the consequences of our 'own' choices.

If you don't have health insurance, we the taxpayers should not pay for your own choices. Your consequences are not our burden. Once we loose the right to choose, we leave behind certain freedoms granted by our constitution. People who want free health insurance (without a disability), are victims of their own foolish choices.

Don't put your burdens on me, for you are the one who made the choice.

I'm a deep believer in the dynamics behind psychology. Even though I obtained my degrees in another field of study, I took several classes in psychology because I believe in the responsibility of 'the individual' for 'individual freedom'. (Without social intervention.)

"You" are responsible for "your own" lack of health care. Not me.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by Pathos]

reply posted on 31-7-2009 @ 07:16 PM by thisguyrighthere

reply to post by Leo Strauss

Local police and fire wouldn't go away. Most libertarians are more than happy to fund their own communities. They just despise federal redistibution and extortion.

Regarding things like pollution acts, OSHA and other fining and penalizing systems peopl who do not behave responsibly and with conscious intent will never behave responsibly. All these acts, orgs and finers do is serve as a vehicle to funnel monies back to the government. Poorly behaved people will behave poorly regardless. Hence the ultimate futility of all law.

I find those with faith in the law and its effectiveness are themselves closet criminals and offenders. They lack responibilty in their own lives and as such project that lack of responsibility out onto others. They are afrad to be free because they do not trust themselves. Think of the homophobic polititians and their gay hidden relationships or the prohibition supporter with the drug problem.

I didn't ask to live among animals and I do not enjoy having my one life regulated to the whims of the unregulateds attempt to legislate their salvation from themselves.

reply posted on 1-8-2009 @ 01:24 AM by Leo Strauss

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Libertarians generally are conservatives that want to get high and get laid.

What a load of rubbish!

I only wish I could transport you back to 19th century or even early 20th century working class life and pitch you into a coal mine at age nine for 12 hours to dig! That might change your ideas about freedom. Maybe we should bring back slavery...oh wait that isn't necessary because we have outsourced our jobs

Are you to dull to realize the latest fiscal/banking crisis like the last Great Depression was a direct result of the deregulation you worship so fervently.

If you want to live in the jungle go for it. I prefer a community.

Healthcare and retirement should be at the very least non profit or provided by the largest pool of payers possible to remove the profit incentive. Why should ONE MAN an insurance CEO make 1.6 billion dollars THAT IS BILLION DOLLARS providing insurance?!?!?!?! Do you know how he made that money hmmmmmm??? By denying the very thing he was supposed to be providing. The free market is not the solution for every problem.

If the only tool you have is a hammer you tend to see every problem as a nail.

What was your point anyway that people that think healthcare should be a right are criminals, homosexuals and drug addicts?? Could you show some research to back up those idiotic claims.

I got news for you... some day you will get sick and old and infirm etc etc. I genuinely hope other human beings will have compassion for you. I hope and pray there will be a system in place to help reduce your suffering and let you keep your dignity before you die. I want that for everyone not just CEO's.

reply posted on 1-8-2009 @ 07:04 AM by thisguyrighthere

reply to post by Leo Strauss

Neither those situations involved a free market. There hasnt been a free market in America since Washington fired on a bunch of farmers in 1791. At best portions of the market were partially deregulated yet still existing under government interference. Even the "black market" is subjected to government interference as legislation and action on the governments parts fluctuate demand and supply. Most is not all attempts to ban or regulate goods go a long way to increase both demand and supply on the "black market" acting in direct contrast to the alleged goals of the regulation or legislation. Maybe the legislators know this maybe they dont.

I dont really mind losing 30 or so years off of my lifespan. Life is about liberty not longevity. Live briefly as a fee man or live forever as a share cropper?

Nor do I wish to live in the jungle. I just want to live and work my land without having to work 3 more jobs just to pay the tax man. Taxation makes freedom impossible.

reply posted on 1-8-2009 @ 07:37 AM by grover

I am personally in favor of it just so long as it has real options and is not just another giveaway to big medicine like the medicare drug plan is.

reply posted on 1-8-2009 @ 08:02 AM by Devino

reply to post by Leo Strauss

Yeah, I also thought the list was long but perhaps the problem can be compared to the old saying,"The squeaky wheel gets the grease." Focus has been on current problems which are crucial and many so it's easy to forget about past achievements.

Originally posted by Pathos
Existential Psychology is the belief that we are all free, and that it is at such a level where it leaves us vulnerable to the consequences of our 'own' choices.

If you don't have health insurance, we the taxpayers should not pay for your own choices. Your consequences are not our burden. Once we loose the right to choose, we leave behind certain freedoms granted by our constitution. People who want free health insurance (without a disability), are victims of their own foolish choices.

Don't put your burdens on me, for you are the one who made the choice.

I'm a deep believer in the dynamics behind psychology. Even though I obtained my degrees in another field of study, I took several classes in psychology because I believe in the responsibility of 'the individual' for 'individual freedom'. (Without social intervention.)

"You" are responsible for "your own" lack of health care. Not me.

This psychological belief is in contradiction the way you presented it. Regardless of what you may think about my comment I feel you could benefit from at least trying to understand my point.

I don't think people decided to not have health insurance but your right in that we are all free to pursue our own future and responsible for our actions. Why does your pursuit require limitations on others?
Making the choice not to be burdened by the problems of people in our own country has consequences and limiting access to education and health care has destructive consequences. Consider the effects your student loan has on your outlook. How would this change if your tuition was paid for by a government grant including health care and living expenses?

Let's not burden ourselves with attempting to take care of people who are too lazy to do it themselves at the cost of our own goals. However, this isn't the issue and my point is let's make sure everyone is taken care of in the pursuit of building a strong and healthy nation. I am sure we all can think of a myriad of ways this won't work and how government can screw up creating even more problems but that is loosing sight of the goal unless your goal is negativity and failure.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Leo Strauss

Regarding things like pollution acts, OSHA and other fining and penalizing systems peopl who do not behave responsibly and with conscious intent will never behave responsibly. All these acts, orgs and finers do is serve as a vehicle to funnel monies back to the government. Poorly behaved people will behave poorly regardless. Hence the ultimate futility of all law.

This is a perfect example of how wrong the idea of deregulation is. Corporations, or the free market, will not do the right thing over profit, I have witnessed this first hand several times.

Ridiculously obvious laws that are meant to protect people, like don't poison the public water supply or otherwise kill thousands of people in an incident due to poor maintenance, are ignored all the same. In some cases paying the fines are less expensive then fixing the problem even though the result is people being killed. Removing the regulations and laws meant to protect the public will not make everyone behave but I do understand there are problems with making new laws and regulations

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I find those with faith in the law and its effectiveness are themselves closet criminals and offenders. They lack responibilty in their own lives and as such project that lack of responsibility out onto others. They are afrad to be free because they do not trust themselves. Think of the homophobic polititians and their gay hidden relationships or the prohibition supporter with the drug problem.

I agree with you here and I would like to add that this is a product of ignorance and hatred not a public health care system. Understanding how someone can be taught to hate himself so well that they devote their life to its destruction is another topic.