Why I Support Universal Healthcare Coverage

[Twizzler]

Obamanauts... That makes me chuckle.

 

[saturneptune]

The problem is you don't differentiate between individuals. Everyone who doesn't think like you is "the left." I don't agree with either one of those two statements either.

Of all the posters on this board, you are the last one that has the right to make such a statement. The reality of the situation is that everyone that does not agree with you (depending on the day of the week) you perceive as being "right." Anyone who equates the present Republican Party (which you disagree with), and conservatives (who you disagree with), as being one unified entity to battle against, has no idea what is going on.

 

[carpro]

The point is that insurance prices are too expensive and the coverage is too limited.

And government intervention bears a huge portion of the blame.

 

[carpro]

And why give trial lawyers a pass ? Talk about greed, they stand to benefit most out of the zero's plan.

Because ,along with unions, they own the democrat party.

Howard Dean admitted it.

 

[alatide]

Of all the posters on this board, you are the last one that has the right to make such a statement. The reality of the situation is that everyone that does not agree with you (depending on the day of the week) you perceive as being "right." Anyone who equates the present Republican Party (which you disagree with), and conservatives (who you disagree with), as being one unified entity to battle against, has no idea what is going on.

When it's 20 to 1 against you you have to fight back. Of course, you are all saying trhe same thing. Obama is a Marxist, communist, Nazi, unAmerican poor excuse for a president. Right?

 

[saturneptune]

When it's 20 to 1 against you you have to fight back. Of course, you are all saying trhe same thing. Obama is a Marxist, communist, Nazi, unAmerican poor excuse for a president. Right?

Wrong, your basic problem, a lack of perception. It is either your side or the right. We have been over this a dozen times. It is quite a bit more complicated than that. As long as you think there is this vast gulf between the two parties, you will continue your flawed ideas. If you are going to be a liberal, at least have enough insight to see that most of the Republican Party is the same way.

 

[OldRegular]

When it's 20 to 1 against you you have to fight back. Of course, you are all saying trhe same thing. Obama is a Marxist, communist, Nazi, unAmerican poor excuse for a president. Right?

I agree: Obama is a Marxist, communist, Nazi, unAmerican, poor excuse for a president. Right?

 

[alatide]

It keeps being repeated frequently that hopsitals, ER's, et al, cannot refuse to treat patients without coverage, so that just 'raises the premiums for all of us that have coverage.' So in that way, is there not already 'universal healthcare?' Would the net change even be significant? And frankly, it's easy to see 45,000 dying annually because of ignorance or stubborness about seeking treatment. 'Universal coverage' will not make people smarter or more likely to change their unhealthy habits. And I don't think it will force people to get an annual or semi-annual checkup... but who knows on that one?

Emergency rooms have to provide care but is this the most efficient way to take care of an ingrown toenail or a cold. My guess is it costs 5 times as much to provide ER care as it does to provide care in a GP's office. Also, they have to provide care but they still bill for it. If you're not totally destitute a collection agency will be hounding you to repay the bill.

 

[alatide]

A touching story, MP. I read every word of the linked article. ($5,000.00 a month for medical insurance seems like a typo to me, btw).

You tug at the heart-strings very well with your plea, as does the rest of the left, but the comparison to the Right to Life cause and Universal Health Care is flawed. Mainly because all souls have a RIGHT to life... not a right to a LONG life, in my opinion. They have a right to PURSUE a LONG LIFE, just as everyone else does, but that shouldn't mean that everyone should foot the bill for ALL the medical costs. Abortion is murder, plain and simple, dying from lack of being able to afford a million dollar surgery is tragic, but not murder.

Even folks WITH good health insurance don't go to the doctor for every little ailment they have. (Remember deductibles and co-pays?) When we make it so easy to go to the doctor that no one has to worry about costs, then we're going to have a totally over-loaded system and folks will die because there aren't enough medical staff to go around. Then you'll yell and scream for more doctors and nurses... it won't ever end.

In the long-run, for me anyway, it comes down to the simple question, 'Is medical care a basic human right?' I say 'No. It is not a RIGHT.'

It sounds like you're arguing for the often lied about death panels. They don't exist in the legislation but they certainly do in your view.

 

[alatide]

I would think that the left would just leave Universal Health Care alone anyway as shortened lives just lead to being closer to zero-population-growth. It doesn't make any sense, does it?

When we want to control the population of a deer herd, we allow the taking of does, we don't go out and spay them. (A cruel analogy yes, but relevant as most leftists see us as animals anyway).

Where do you get this stuff? I don't believe that we in the US have a population issue like some countries. Their problem is they don't have enough money to feed all their people. No country is as rich as we are and yet we can't seem to make it a priority to provide decent health care for our people. I suppose some people just deserve to die, right?

 

[alatide]

The falacy greater than the one that people die because they don't have health insurance is that somehow the government can solve the problem. The government, friends, won't do anything but politize medical care, corrupt the process of obtaining it, introduce more waste to it, and, as always, tax those who produce to buy votes from those who don't.

Why do you suppose all those fools in every developed country other than the "land of the free" have this kind of health care support? It's because people like you are unwilling to be charitable and help their fellow man. Faith without works is dead according to James.

 

[annsni]

Why do you suppose all those fools in every developed country other than the "land of the free" have this kind of health care support? It's because people like you are unwilling to be charitable and help their fellow man. Faith without works is dead according to James.

So we're supposed to provide health care coverage to those who choose not to work?? I don't see that supported in Scripture. Faith without works is dead - but it's not saying we must provide for those who won't provide for themselves.

 

[annsni]

Is it not true that all the options that have been put out so far are paid into systems? That everyone would need to pay something in order to have health care? And if you choose not to pay into it, you'd be fined or something?? Honestly, I've not gone in-depth into this whole subject but these are some things I remember reading/hearing.

 

[OldRegular]

Why do you suppose all those fools in every developed country other than the "land of the free" have this kind of health care support?

Because they are fools and they live in a Socialist country where health care is rationed.

It's because people like you are unwilling to be charitable and help their fellow man. Faith without works is dead according to James.

It is a proven fact that Conservatives give far more to charity than leftists like you "whoever". So according to James the faith of leftists is dead. Does that include you "whoever"? Actually most leftists are agnostic humanists at best and atheist at worst; so what James or any Scripture says means nothing to them.

*********************************************************************************

GIVING BY ONE OF YOUR HEROS.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/15/gore.taxes/

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, April 15) -- In a 34-page 1997 federal tax return, Vice President Al Gore and wife Tipper reported giving $353 to charity, an amount much lower than donations the family has made in previous tax cycles.

That figure is less than one-tenth the typical contribution amount for someone with the Gores' adjusted gross income of $197,729. That fact has caused some bewilderment in philanthropic circles because of the vice president's "good guy" image as an advocate for public service and social causes, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday..

****************************************************************************

THE REAL GENEROSITY OF LIBERALS

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

************************************************************************************
"whoever"
The above sites demonstrate that the so-called generosity of the leftists is a lie. They are only generous with other peoples money. That is the reason they are Socialists. Your pious attitude is also hypocritical 'whoever".

 

[Dragoon68]

There seems to be a misconception by some that those of us who strongly oppose the federal government's meddling in health care are "unwilling to be charitable and help their fellow man". Baloney! We just don't want a bunch of politicians getting hold of what families, friends, churches, and charities can do much better. Government just brings politics - vote buying, waste, corruption, entitlement, dependency, etc. to the business of helping our fellow man. That's the track record of all the social programs to date and yet some just keep asking for more.

 

[Revmitchell]

There seems to be a misconception by some that those of us who strongly oppose the federal government's meddling in health care are "unwilling to be charitable and help their fellow man".

That is not what it is. It is a debate tactic and political tool used to gain sympathy. It is dishonest and disingenuous.

 

[Robert Snow]

Emergency rooms have to provide care but is this the most efficient way to take care of an ingrown toenail or a cold. My guess is it costs 5 times as much to provide ER care as it does to provide care in a GP's office. Also, they have to provide care but they still bill for it. If you're not totally destitute a collection agency will be hounding you to repay the bill.

I find it odd that the republicans would rather continue to pay emergency room costs for people who do not have insurance, including illegals, instead of supporting universal health care.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I find it odd that the republicans would rather continue to pay emergency room costs for people who do not have insurance, including illegals, instead of supporting universal health care.

I find your statement way off base. There are around here many place that you can get into and not use emergency rooms, such as MediQuick. If you are having problems, our church helps and pays bills for many.

I don't know what the cost of government aid programs are today but back in the 80's I read some where that it cost 80 dollars for the government to give a dollar to some of its aid programs. That counts pay and health and welfare of its employees. That seems rather high to me.

When I had a contract to haul a good amount of freight for the government, it took longer to get unloaded and many places didn't seem to know what they were doing or maybe they just didn't care, I don't know. At non union place, I'm unloaded most of the time in about 4 hours or less, at a union place 5 hours or less on most government loads it is about 6 to 7 hours. Try hauling beds to a VA Hospital and see how long it takes to get them off and try Baptist in Jacksonville, there is a big difference. That isn't good, I make my money when the wheels are turning, not when I'm not moving. That is waste of my time and time is money. Most of the time on government loads there where more people unloading me than at other places.

That is one of the many reasons that I don't trust the government to run my health care, they don't seem to do thing in a cost saving way. Business seem to do much better job than government.

By the way I buy my own health insurance and you are correct it isn't cheap. It is based off of my age and at my age, not much is cheap. But one spends his money where he has to or wants to. Many truckers owners do not have health insurance but they spend their income on other things, many on Friday nights or on many others things and that is their right, they can waste their money or use it for the best way to help their family.

 

[Alcott]

I suppose some people just deserve to die, right?

According to scripture, all do.

 

[alatide]

So we're supposed to provide health care coverage to those who choose not to work?? I don't see that supported in Scripture. Faith without works is dead - but it's not saying we must provide for those who won't provide for themselves.

I'm not saying that we as a country should do that but how did the Good Samaritan know whether or not that man lying by the way side had a job or not? You can decide based on your own beliefs.