MANDATORY health insurance

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you support the Government telling people what they can and can't eat, drink or smoke?

What are you even talking about? I've never heard of any government with universal health care ordering people not to eat certain things, drink, or smoke, it's all still an individual choice. But, they do help those who want to be helped.

I don't even know why I'm replying to this nonsense. I'm going back to my usual policy of mentally ignoring you. :)
 
We're fat because we want to be, it really shouldn't concern anyone except the fat fucks. Maybe being skinny is why Japan kills us in the suicide rate race.

If you ignore me this place is just one big Liberal dick suck, and what's the fun in that?


Why are the UK, Australia and NZ to name a few nearly as fat as us? Genetics?
 
Drop the term 'Obamacare'. It makes you sound like you're fucking ten years old. The dream of universal healthcare has been around for decades. Don't use a serious moral issue to take childish stabs at a president you dislike. It cheapens the whole debate, destroys your credibility, and insults people everywhere who need healthcare and don't have it.

I really think people who oppose universal healthcare are totally oblivious to how unfathomably arrogant and selfish their position is. Arrogant because every other Western democracy has universal healthcare and yet the anti-universal-healthcare position says that all of those other Western democracies are wrong, that all of the politicians in all of those governments who enacted, ran, and continue to run those universal healthcare systems, are wrong, and that almighty America would be right to reject any and all such systems. Selfish because the anti-universal-healthcare position is in favor of each person paying for his/her own healthcare and looks down on the idea of everyone chipping in so that those who are less financially fortunate can enjoy the same quality of healthcare as those who are financially fortunate.

And then those who oppose universal healthcare use the most ridiculous arguments.

HEAR THE FOLLOWING ONCE AND FOR ALL:

"DEATH PANEL" IS A PHRASE CREATED BY THE RIGHT TO SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF GULLIBLE AND UNINFORMED CONSERVATIVES AND RIGHT-LEANING INDEPENDENTS. THE GOVERNMENT WON'T DECIDE WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES ANYMORE THAN PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES DO - WHICH IS ALREADY TOO MUCH.

GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

GOVERNMENT WILL NOT TELL YOU WHAT TO EAT OR DRINK. NOBODY IS GOING TO STOP YOU FROM BUYING A BAG OF CHIPS OR A SIX PACK OF BEER, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND SEARCH IT WITH THE INTENT OF CONFISCATING A BAG OF CHIPS OR A SIX PACK OF BEER SHOULD THEY FIND SUCH THINGS.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST STEP DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO BECOMING THE U.A.S.R.

It would be enough if those who oppose universal healthcare were the only problem, but unfortunately there's also the problem of the Democrats in power who do support universal healthcare. They're too fucking terrified of not getting checks from the private insurance companies come 2010, 2012, and beyond, to really be aggressive and all-out about this. They're still sitting at the table with the private insurance companies. The private insurance companies still get to 'ok' every damn word of the bill. That's terrible. That's why all of this hysterical debate is only over the relatively conservative, very un-radical public option, and not real, true, universal healthcare. The Obama administration wants it that way; there are reports that the more progressive Democrats in congress were told in not so many words to sit down and shut up by the administration, because their input into the bill would have been unapproved-by-private-insurance-companies-single-payer-universal-healthcare. They would rather win with a middle-of-the-road bill then lose while trying to go all the way. And the tragedy is that they're having a hell of a time winning with the middle-of-the-road bill, for two reasons; They suck at framing the debate, explaining in simple but powerful terms why it's necessary, and promoting it, and people are stupid.

Those who don't support universal health care: Get over the arrogance, get over the selfishness, get over the idiotic arguments. Those in power who are spineless and are pushing an inadequate middle-of-the-road bill because you want to appease the private health insurance companies and cash their checks in your next election: Get over the arrogance, get over the selfishness. This is a moral issue that gets to the core of who we are as a nation and who we are as a people. To quote Bill Moyers from tonight's episode of Real Time With Bill Maher - Maher had Moyers on for a special nearly thirty minute one-on-one interview, and it should be required viewing for everyone in this country - in response to Maher asking what the appropriate metaphor for this debate is, "We're all in the same boat". He said that, "We're all in this together", and "I don't want to live in a country where I am on a hospital floor getting an operation that costs $25,000, and two floors above me someone is being denied that same surgery because he or she has no money. What kind of a civilization is that?"

What kind of a civilization is that? Can you answer that? What kind of civilization is it that employs a healthcare system that does more to financially benefit private insurance companies than it does to provide healthcare to every man, woman, and child?

What kind of a civilization is that?
 
I'd like to suggest we take a step back for a moment and consider a key underlying question. Like a lot of high octane issues, there's often an underlying issue that remains unaddressed while we argue past each other. I think that's the case here.

The question is simply this: Do you think everyone should have access to basic and necessary health care, regardless of ability to pay?

Because if you don't think so, then many of the arguments I've heard here make a lot more sense. After all, we would we spend so much money and risk complicating our current healthcare situation further if it's for something that's essentially unnecessary? I know what the the majority of the posters here think, but I'm especially interested in hearing from INDY, Hyper, Bluer White, and any other opponents of health care reform.
 
I saw Bill Clinton speak today and he commented on the health care issue, summarizing it perfectly by saying something along the lines of "There is a lot of money here that is going somewhere and the somewhere doesn't want to give it up."
 
Arrogant because every other Western democracy has universal healthcare and yet the anti-universal-healthcare position says that all of those other Western democracies are wrong, that all of the politicians in all of those governments who enacted, ran, and continue to run those universal healthcare systems, are wrong, and that almighty America would be right to reject any and all such systems.

Except there are people who really do believe that and who are seemingly unable to grasp the simple notion that there are places in the world that do some things as well as the U.S. does and there are even some places in the world that do some things considerably better than the U.S. does. But we've read on these forums, more than once, really patronizing and condescending commentary directed at the rest of the world that really tells you a lot. The worst part is that these people aren't trying to be offensive, they actually truly believe in this form of American exceptionalism. When that informs your positions, you can then see why your line of reasoning in the quoted text is irrelevant to them.
 
The question is simply this: Do you think everyone should have access to basic and necessary health care, regardless of ability to pay?

Because if you don't think so, then many of the arguments I've heard here make a lot more sense. After all, we would we spend so much money and risk complicating our current healthcare situation further if it's for something that's essentially unnecessary? I know what the the majority of the posters here think, but I'm especially interested in hearing from INDY, Hyper, Bluer White, and any other opponents of health care reform.

Well, I'm not an opponent of good health care reform.

I am an opponent of the 1000 page House bill I linked to on page 14 and the specific parts of the bill I outlined. I'd rather discuss details of proposals and their implications. The president has been dishonest in the way he's sold his ideas in regard to choice, costs and rationing. That's being reflected in townhalls and in his own falling poll numbers.

I support many of the ideas from the article written by the Whole Foods CEO on page 19. And in any plan that falls short of insuring everyone, I believe the government should provide a final safety net so that every American can receive necessary care without going bankrupt. That does not mean single-payer, and that's the direction Obamacare takes us.
 
Drop the term 'Obamacare'. It makes you sound like you're fucking ten years old.

Myself, I've tried to avoid using it in the pejorative. But it does work as short hand for "democratic health care reform as expressed in several bills currently before Congress or in non-specific platitudes and goals expressed by the president." Much shorter.
I really think people who oppose universal healthcare are totally oblivious to how unfathomably arrogant and selfish their position is. Arrogant because every other Western democracy has universal healthcare and yet the anti-universal-healthcare position says that all of those other Western democracies are wrong, that all of the politicians in all of those governments who enacted, ran, and continue to run those universal healthcare systems, are wrong, and that almighty America would be right to reject any and all such systems.
It's not arrogant to point out those systems are ALL much smaller than the system the U.S. would require. Roughly 307 million vs 33 million (Canada), 9 million (Sweden), or 60 million (Great Britain).

It's not arrogant to point out each of these systems have their own failings and shortcomings as well as facing their own challenges and "crises."

It's not arrogant to champion free markets, individual choice and profit over collectivism, government control and bureaucracy.

I know some of you feel opposition to liberal orthodoxy is by definition arrogance but it isn't.

Selfish because the anti-universal-healthcare position is in favor of each person paying for his/her own healthcare and looks down on the idea of everyone chipping in so that those who are less financially fortunate can enjoy the same quality of healthcare as those who are financially fortunate.
If only it worked that way. In reality the quality of health care goes down for all as costs are controlled by rationing and new innovations are discouraged by the lack of profit.
And then those who oppose universal healthcare use the most ridiculous arguments.

HEAR THE FOLLOWING ONCE AND FOR ALL:

"DEATH PANEL" IS A PHRASE CREATED BY THE RIGHT TO SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF GULLIBLE AND UNINFORMED CONSERVATIVES AND RIGHT-LEANING INDEPENDENTS. THE GOVERNMENT WON'T DECIDE WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES ANYMORE THAN PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES DO - WHICH IS ALREADY TOO MUCH.
The problem with government health systems is not that they pull the plug on Grandma. It's that Grandma has a hell of a time getting plugged in the first place.
--Mark Steyn
Government lowers price to control costs=less providers=rationing= many Grandmas dying before they ever get plugged in.
GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
1) And where does it implicitly state this?
2) Why was language to say as much rejected by Democrats
3) Why are pro-immigration groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement on board?
4) Where is the money for enforcement and verification?
GOVERNMENT WILL NOT TELL YOU WHAT TO EAT OR DRINK. NOBODY IS GOING TO STOP YOU FROM BUYING A BAG OF CHIPS OR A SIX PACK OF BEER, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND SEARCH IT WITH THE INTENT OF CONFISCATING A BAG OF CHIPS OR A SIX PACK OF BEER SHOULD THEY FIND SUCH THINGS.
But they will follow the tobacco model and restrict access and advertising while slapping "sin taxes" on them to highly discourage their consumption.
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST STEP DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO BECOMING THE U.A.S.R.
You're right, but it could be a slippery slope to becoming Canada and god knows one of those is enough.
Those who don't support universal health care: Get over the arrogance, get over the selfishness, get over the idiotic arguments.
In other words. Shut up !! and eat your bigger-government-is-the-answer-to-every-problem vegetables.
This is a moral issue that gets to the core of who we are as a nation and who we are as a people.
"Who we are as a nation"? Why I thought it was arrogance to suggest any option other than blindly following the lead of European countries in this matter.
Anyway, let's save the moral stuff for when we raise the issue of government funded abortion.
To quote Bill Moyers from tonight's episode of Real Time With Bill Maher - Maher had Moyers on for a special nearly thirty minute one-on-one interview, and it should be required viewing
Whoa! required viewing no less! And who said liberals can't be fascists?
for everyone in this country - in response to Maher asking what the appropriate metaphor for this debate is, "We're all in the same boat". He said that, "We're all in this together", and "I don't want to live in a country where I am on a hospital floor getting an operation that costs $25,000, and two floors above me someone is being denied that same surgery because he or she has no money. What kind of a civilization is that?"
Too bad for the poor soul two floors above, that Mr Moyer's isn't as generous with his own money as he and his fellow advocates of Obamacare (sorry) want to be with mine.
What kind of a civilization is that? Can you answer that? What kind of civilization is it that employs a healthcare system that does more to financially benefit private insurance companies than it does to provide healthcare to every man, woman, and child?

What kind of a civilization is that?

One that will figure it out like we always have.
 
It's not arrogant to champion free markets, individual choice and profit over collectivism, government control and bureaucracy.

Except no one is doing that. I haven't heard one Republican calling for insurance reform and to tear down it's collectivism.

A champion for profit insurance companies is just championing the same exact thing but under big business rather than government, except that big business will deny a lot more.

It's something that's been brought up a thousand times and ignored 1001 times.
 
but, clearly, the government should be trusted to torture.

Would you trust a government that engaged in torture (to say nothing of its relative ineffectiveness in response to domestic crises like Katrina) to effectively manage the care of its citizens?
 
Would you trust a government that engaged in torture (to say nothing of its relative ineffectiveness in response to domestic crises like Katrina) to effectively manage the care of its citizens?



i wouldn't trust George Bush and Dick Cheney to change my oil.

you realize, though, that torture is illegal, whereas most governments in the West provide health care to their citizens. so, the comparison goes one way, and not the other.
 
you realize, though, that torture is illegal, whereas most governments in the West provide health care to their citizens. so, the comparison goes one way, and not the other.

If we define "health care" as loosely as you define "torture" than we all have a right to hot spring spas, botox injections, herbal colonics and yoga lessons as well as gym memberships, manicures and haircuts.

Include 'sexual healing" and Indy is onboard.
 
If we define "health care" as loosely as you define "torture" than we all have a right to hot spring spas, botox injections, herbal colonics and yoga lessons as well as gym memberships, manicures and haircuts.

Include 'sexual healing" and Indy is onboard.



i see.

so the Kahmer Rouge were really big into botox?

and, thusly, in your eyes, John McCain was not tortured by the Viet Cong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom