Do Democrats Pay for Their Lunches?

I'm not sure if this violates the new ban on political discussion as I do intend it to elicit a response from Pro-free health-care people.

If you are in favor of Free Health care
-have you ever heard the expression "there is no such thing as a free lunch?"
-if you have, do you feel this applies to the health care debate?
-if yes, at what cost is free health care worth it? Who pays for it? and would this exempt it from falling under the "free" category?
-if not, how would free health care differ from a free lunch? and how would someone go about getting either?


On another matter, I'd like to ask you guys about free health care and freedom. I have the freedom to smoke, drink, or over-eat fatty foods; I also have the freedom to not partake in these things. I have the freedom and right to pursue my happiness via health care from whatever doctor I see fit. I don't (currently) have the right to be treated by the world's best team of doctors 24/7 nor would I expect that right. I do however have the freedom to attain such lavish health care through the pursuit of my own happiness. I think I'd have make alot of money in a free market first but you hopefully get my point. So do you (a Pro-free health-care person) think of health care as a right and what drawbacks can you think of by doing so?

If you're not a free health care advocate feel free to chime in but maybe mention your position. To the pro's, neigh's, and in-between's- have a healthy day!

My personal opinion is kind of extreme on this issue.

I think health care should be based on a scale of how well you treat your body, and how able you are to treat your body well.

If you stay healthy, exercise, dont smoke, dont drink or use drugs excessively, then you should be benefited with good health care at little cost.

If you sit on your couch, eat garbage all day, smoke, drink, and smoke pot every day, then you should also have health care but do you really deserve the best? Clearly you don't give a s**t about your body, so why should anyone else? If you get health care, it shouldn't be free in this case, but should cost something. What that something is, I have no idea.

The biggest peeve of mine is how much money we will all be paying for people who are like this. People who WONT stop smoking, people who are addicted to drinking (yes, addiction is kind of not a persons fault, but there are ways to treat it), people who WONT exercise, and who really dont care. People who eat garbage all day. But the second they have heart problems, or liver failure, obesity, diabetes, or something serious from their lifestyle, we are all paying out of pocket for an existence they clearly don't hold in very high regard.

However this will never happen, its to ruthless and people would cry about it endlessly. But to me it comes down to this: Why should any of us, any doctor, anyone, care about a person who doesn't care about themselves? Especially, why should we contribute our own hard earned money towards a lifestyle they are choosing to live and is harming them?

I am against banning anything, in fact I am for legalization of lots of things which are presently illegal. I would never support a fat tax, thats just extreme and not everyone who is fat is at fault. But if you have no actual disorder and just sit around eating and watching American Idol every night, well, sucks to be you.

Live by the sword die by the sword.

reply to post by Seventhdoor

Wow, thanks for your quality response. I like alot of your ideas about weighing cost with the regular health choices an individual has to make but I want to guess insurance companies already do this, maybe more than we'd like. I know they likely have extensive formulas and ways to calculate the cost of insuring say a motorist or person.

reply to post by Moonsouljah


I am pro free health care. I'll do my best to answer your questions without any fanfare

have you ever heard the expression "there is no such thing as a free lunch?"

I am aware that government services and benefits come from our collective pocket. Yes.

if you have, do you feel this applies to the health care debate?

Absolutely, and it is certainly a valid point.

if yes, at what cost is free health care worth it? Who pays for it? and would this exempt it from falling under the "free" category?

It is not free. But this is my ideological take for what it is worth in terms of cost/benefit. I tend to separate what I'm willing to pay for in terms of what we are able to do for ourselves. For instance, I believe that getting a job is within an individual's power and therefore I am not willing to pay for it. Healthcare however, is something we cannot do for ourselves and therefore I am willing to pay for it. If I lose my job, there is the hope that I can get another. If I get cancer, I am going to need help.

In this sense I believe it is a service which is worth my tax money. I also believe that sooner or later we all end up in hospital. Either that, or our loved ones. Ideology asside, it may even make economoical sense if you are a healthy person (in the long run).

I hope I've made my point clear Over to you.

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
If you are in favor of Free Health care
-have you ever heard the expression "there is no such thing as a free lunch?"

You bet. Have you noticed that it's only opponents of health care claiming that people think it's going to be a "free lunch"? I've yet to see a proponent make this sort of claim.

-if you have, do you feel this applies to the health care debate?
-if yes, at what cost is free health care worth it? Who pays for it? and would this exempt it from falling under the "free" category?

Of course it applies. It would be paid for by American taxpayers. it's not exactly a mystery, you know. Again, the only people trying to call it "free" are opponents of the idea who are trying to frame the argument.

At what cost? Well, let me give you an example of something that happened to me.

When I was younger - just out of the parents' house - I was working part-time at a jerky factory. I had just started, and being part time, wasn't eligible for the benefits package, so I didn't have any form of health insurance. I was there a few weeks, when I got attacked by a dog. The sucker damn near rippled my nose off of my face, and I had to go to the ER to have it sutured, then I had to be shuffled out of town to get some rhinoplasty done to make it resemble a nose again. Naturally I was not working that day, nor for the three days I was in the hospital, or for three more days I was on these gnarly pain meds, and I missed work the day hte stitches were taken out, too.

So what's the net cost? Eight days that I did not get a paycheck.
I had to pay the cost of the ER trip, three day stay in a hospital, anaesthetics, and of course the plastic surgery, out-of-pocket.
That first day my floor manager called someone in to fill for me. That being short notice, that person got time and a half pay.
For the other seven days I worked, a different dloor manager just went on without me, resulting in an overall loss of efficiency in the workplace as other employees had to work harder to fill my place.
The hospital also lost money because I couldn't pay the total bill without succumbing to other health woes like, say, starvation or hypothermia from a lack of heat, or the like They forgave my remaining debt the next christmas, and while I appreciate it, I realize they lost over a thousand dollars in so doing.

I'm sure that between myself and my employer, this went into five-digit territory in money lost because of what was, in all honesty, a freak incident. I didn't PLAN for a doberman to assault me in my front yard. had I known who the owner was, I would have naturally dragged them through every court I needed to to pay damages (and then some - even more money someone's losing!)

With a public option, the price tag would be the same. However the cost would be spread out over thousands of people - a few pennies from him, fifty cents from her, so on and so forth. This has a net effect of saving my money and my employers money, granting us increased buying power, without seriously diminishing the buying power of others. Additionally the costs I had to pay were inflated due to the distortion effect the insurance industries have on the marketplace of healthcare. The same procedure costs less in total for a person and their insurance company, than it does for an insured person.

An illness or accident can seriously screw up a person's economic standing. When this happens, it affects the entire network of producer and consumer. when lots of people are unable to pay for the care they need, you get two effects - one, you either get unhealthy people i nthe workplace which is obviously unsafe and inefficient, and two, you get people who have these large debts to hospitals and doctors, who very often never see a dime of it. This is an obvious problem as well.

A healthcare safety net, a single-payer public option, won't be free. But i'm reasonably certain it will end up costing less for everyone than the current situation does - imagine how far your insurance payments will drop if there's actual market competition, for starters!

I don't (currently) have the right to be treated by the world's best team of doctors 24/7 nor would I expect that right.

Obviously you're not Cuban!

I do however have the freedom to attain such lavish health care through the pursuit of my own happiness. I think I'd have make alot of money in a free market first but you hopefully get my point. So do you (a Pro-free health-care person) think of health care as a right and what drawbacks can you think of by doing so?

Health care is definitely a right. Can you really tell me that someone deserves to die of a treatable illness or injury because they're poor? What do you say to the homeless fellow with a concussion and internal hemorrhaging due to being targeted by a bunch of hoodlums out on a "bum bashing" kick? "Sorry, you must be this rich for treatment"?

Now this may look like an appeal to emotion, but let's be honest, it does have a place here. Is it in any way conscionable to tell people with little money that they do not deserve to have treatment for their health woes? Is that the sort of society that we want to think of when we go "America... *&@! YEAH!"

The drawback of enumerating it as a right is pretty easy - how far does it go? Health care, to me, obviously implies care for your health, not your vanity. If you want larger breasts, a harder erection, more hair, less hair, or you want to slim from a size 3 to a size 0, well, get a job and buy your own cosmetic crap. On hte other hand if you got your face caught in a car explosion, or if you need your fat siphoned out so you don't suffocate when you sleep, I could see that covered (in the latter case I would say that you have to pay to have your blubber refined into heating fuel, but hey). we can expect several court cases where people are claiming their elective procedures are necessary for their health.

But then we have the same sort of people arguing that the 2nd amendment entitles them to own a personal fighter jet, too. So calling it a right doesn't actually seem any more problematic than our other many rights.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

No such thing as "Free Health Care". The taxpayers get the burnt out of all this while the bums get a free-ride. It's a promotion of handouts/laziness which I will never approve of.

Much like how the Government eats up all the taxpayers' money. Hell. Taxpayers pay their salaries and we end up as their slaves.

reply to post by Unregistered


YEAH! those BUMS! dying from treatable illness will show them that their lifestyle choice of poverty is wrong.