- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
In the end, both sides want the same thing, for people to be able to live their lives well. It is the difference though on how to achieve that which divides us, with one side believing the individual is responsible for their lives, and other the other believing that we are responsible. Friends, we cannot be responsible, we cannot afford to be. You have the right to succeed or fail in this life. Trying to make life failure free will make us all fail.
What we have here is a fundamental disagreement on philosophy.
Both have their negatives and their positives. Your system is not by any means perfect and my system is by no means perfect.
What I know from first hand experience: If you have money in America, you can have access to the BEST health care in the world. Hands down no contest I know it first hand. But that doesn't mean you have the best SYSTEM in the world.
It seems to leave many people behind.
Not only that, but it places huge burdens on family and indivuals who through fear of not having health care and getting sick and going bankrupt, pay out their asses for Health Care insurance which in the end, could drop them any time they wanted with some lame ass excuse.
I think the question shouldn't be asked if Health Care is a right, I think the question should be asked should health care be a medium for money making. My answer? Absolutely not.
The system is fixed, it isn't "free market" because these insurance companies up until recently made sure all the rules were bent in their favour and they had a monolopy on it, that's not "free market".
And I'm sure with everything I've just said we'll have a lot of disagreements but I'll go back to personal experience.
Does Canada have long waiting times for some surgeries, absolutely.
Is it hard to see certain specialists, yes, I know it well.
But Its a trade off, it's always a trade off since as I said before no system is perfect.
In Canada, I don't have that great financial burden on my back. If I get hurt, I will be tended to. I know that without a doubt. And I don't have to worry about medical bills or insurance paperwork. I am a Canadian Citizen and by that, have the right to health care. It is a fantastic thing, would I trade it for your money making system, never. You ask anybody in our system save a couple on this site if they were trade our system for yours, the answer would be a resounding no. That speaks volumes when very few Canadians want your system, but alot of Americans feel a system like ours would be better.
THAT's the difference.
That money I don't have to spend on Health Care can go else where, businesses don't have to worry about providing health care allowing them to use their money in other ways. Some businesses do provide extra medical benefits as a BONUs and they're not required to.
All a trade off.
Best Health Care In The World - If you got money
Long Waiting times but its free - I don't have to worry about going bankrupt over medical bills.
Me and my fellow countrymen help eachother out. When you're sick, I got your back. That's the way I and many others feel.
This has been Jets incorrehant health care rant of the day, feel free to pick it apart I couldn't care less, I would never want your system in a million years.
But I'll use it if I got the dough
What happens when a person without insurance or any significant amount of money to speak of goes to the hospital for a 30,000 dollar emergency surgery and doesn't pay his bill?You have the Right to seek treatment, you do not have the Right to force another to pay for your treatment.
The problem is, that your system is not voluntary, it's forced. And that is unacceptable.
Washington Lobbying Grew to $3.2 Billion Last Year, Despite Economy - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets... the pharmaceuticals/health products industry again outspent all industries by shelling out $230.9 million for lobbying services, or a daily average of $1.3 million for the 184 days that the 110th Congress met in 2008. The drug industry, which will be trying to influence this year's debates on health care reform, has spent $1.6 billion on federal lobbying over the last 11 years, more than any other industry.
let's see who sides with the OP on this matter:
Washington Lobbying Grew to $3.2 Billion Last Year, Despite Economy - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
I disagree. I believe that we have the right to treatment and should not be denied treatment due to financial means. In our society we try to value human life. It would be an atrocity to let someone die because they can't pay for a medical procedure or for a medicine. Healthcare is a necessity. I know private insurance is something you purchase, but the structure of it is similar to that of a nationalized healthcare system. Essentially, with an insurance plan you have people paying money into a pool, and when someone on the plan requires treatment that money is given to them according to their policy. The problem is that insurance companies are profits motivated, not consumer motivated. A nationalized healthcare system would be similar, as everyone pays a tax into a pool, and treatment is paid for based on needs. The missing equation here is the profits, as insurance would become a public service and not a for profit enterprise. From my experience with insurance companies, after the first of the year they all raised premiums and decreased coverage benefits (at least on the pharmaceutical side of things). They make tons of money at the expense of people who must pay money they don't have for procedures that they need to live.
Basically, I believe healthcare is a right. Human life is valuable, and we shouldn't allow someone to die because they can't financially pay for a necessary procedure or medicine. Insurance companies run a for profit service that focuses on income instead of customer care. A national system would reduce the profits from the equation and the focus would be on patient care (in an ideal scenario, I do acknowledge the wrong and broken systems in other nations).
This has been Jets incorrehant health care rant of the day, feel free to pick it apart I couldn't care less, I would never want your system in a million years.
Yeah it was incoherent alright, LOL.
Often times my brain moves faster then my fingers so I gotta get out what I can before my thoughts run away :2razz:
The problem is, that your system is not voluntary, it's forced. And that is unacceptable.
No secret that I'm a Conservative. But this is one issue where I stand with Obama.
If you're poor in America, you get free healthcare. Taxpayers are already paying for that. If your employer provides your health insurance, even though most likely you have to pay something toward it, you don't even know how much it costs. If your employer doesn't provide healthcare, in all likelihood, you don't have any insurance....be you poor, lower-middle, middle or upper-middle class. Individual healthcare insurance is very expensive...there are built-in exclusions to where sometimes it seems like the insurance companies are excluding the skin and all its contents.
I've been an entrepreneur my whole life. As such, I have always provided my own healthcare insurance. When I finally left American Family Insurance a few years ago and went into my state's ICHIP plan, I was paying AF $850 a month. Who can afford that? Well, I had to because without it I would have been homeless in the streets. Now I'm paying $640 a month and very grateful that my state subsidizes my insurance thru BCBS/ICHIP.
As an entrepreneur, because I could afford insurance, my company created at least a dozen jobs in addition to my own. Entrepreneurs are good for the economy.
How many would-be entrepreneurs are stuck in their 9 to 5's because they can't afford their own health insurance? Or -- because they have pre-existing conditions that preclude their even buying insurance at any cost? Plenty. Plenty!!
While I would absolutely love to see a $500 or $1000 mandatory deductible for health insurance plans (mine is $5,200), I think our government did the right thing. We need everyone sharing the healthcare burden. We're already sharing the burden for the poor. We need to help everyone.
That's actually a really good point. The US is basically the only wealthy Nation that doesn't provide a public coverage universally, although we have a type we provide to the poor and Government employees. It's the working middle-class, who might not be covered by their employer, who don't get covered.No secret that I'm a Conservative. But this is one issue where I stand with Obama.
If you're poor in America, you get free healthcare. Taxpayers are already paying for that.
I disagree. I believe that we have the right to treatment and should not be denied treatment due to financial means. In our society we try to value human life. It would be an atrocity to let someone die because they can't pay for a medical procedure or for a medicine. Healthcare is a necessity. I know private insurance is something you purchase, but the structure of it is similar to that of a nationalized healthcare system. Essentially, with an insurance plan you have people paying money into a pool, and when someone on the plan requires treatment that money is given to them according to their policy. The problem is that insurance companies are profits motivated, not consumer motivated. A nationalized healthcare system would be similar, as everyone pays a tax into a pool, and treatment is paid for based on needs. The missing equation here is the profits, as insurance would become a public service and not a for profit enterprise. From my experience with insurance companies, after the first of the year they all raised premiums and decreased coverage benefits (at least on the pharmaceutical side of things). They make tons of money at the expense of people who must pay money they don't have for procedures that they need to live.
Basically, I believe healthcare is a right. Human life is valuable, and we shouldn't allow someone to die because they can't financially pay for a necessary procedure or medicine. Insurance companies run a for profit service that focuses on income instead of customer care. A national system would reduce the profits from the equation and the focus would be on patient care (in an ideal scenario, I do acknowledge the wrong and broken systems in other nations).
A right cannot confer obligation on another for you to exercise said right. UHC is enforced obligation to others. And that is wrong.
I like how the OP makes a declarative that "nobody has a right to health care" as if this is some sort of universal, unchangeable truth and isn't entirely arbitrary like every other right.
We have universal health care here in Canada.
You don't have to sign up for it if you don't want to.
Taxes are what you pay to live in a civilized society.
You don't like it, pack up your **** and go live in the Mountains of the rockies where you can have all the "freedom" you want.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?