The only role of the US Government is to protect US citizens

[GenSeneca]

Where did I say we owe our citizenry food, housing, disability pay, old age pension?

So the only part of the welfare state you actually support is the HC side? You really think we should eliminate food stamps, housing subsidies, SS and SSDI, welfare, and every other program that exists to help the poor and elderly?

I did say that it would be a lot cheaper and more practical to have a universal health insurance that covered everyone, but I didn't expect that to be free. Just a lot less expensive than what we have.

Why don't you make that argument for all goods and services? If forcing people to pay for insurance that covers goods and services provided by the HC industry magically lowers the cost of those goods and services, then why don't you apply that same theory to every other industry? Surely a similar scheme would lower the cost of food, housing, clothing, cars, televisions, and every other good or service within other industries...

Face it: The current health care system consumes 18% of the GDP and is growing. That is unsustainable.

That is your ideological principle in action. The more government gets involved, the more expensive it becomes, and your perpetual solution is to have more government involvement, so it becomes more expense, and you ignore the definition of insanity.

Your idea of relying on charity isn't practical, i.e., won't work.

Worked fine for over 100 years, people couldn't get to the US fast enough and we didn't have piles of dead bodies lining our streets.

Allowing citizens to die for lack of cash is not moral.

That's on you. Forcing others to pay is immoral.

But, that's all academic anyway. We will allow the current health care system to bankrupt us. Maybe when the middle class can no longer afford a hospital stay, then the population will do something about it.

But, I doubt it.

Americans will allow the welfare state to bankrupt the country, HC expenses will only be a part of that cost. The system is failing because it is immoral, and I'm saddened that you think immorality is practical despite the evidence to the contrary. Only a moral system is sustainable.

 

[PLC1]

So the only part of the welfare state you actually support is the HC side? You really think we should eliminate food stamps, housing subsidies, SS and SSDI, welfare, and every other program that exists to help the poor and elderly?


Why don't you make that argument for all goods and services? If forcing people to pay for insurance that covers goods and services provided by the HC industry magically lowers the cost of those goods and services, then why don't you apply that same theory to every other industry? Surely a similar scheme would lower the cost of food, housing, clothing, cars, televisions, and every other good or service within other industries...

As I said before, some things are a collective benefit and should be paid for collectively. Now, I'm not talking about a pre paid health care, you understand, but a real insurance program that covers unaffordable costs of life saving procedures.

That is your ideological principle in action. The more government gets involved, the more expensive it becomes, and your perpetual solution is to have more government involvement, so it becomes more expense, and you ignore the definition of insanity.

and yet, every other nation in the world, no exceptions anywhere, that has a government sponsored universal health care plan of any sort pays far and away less than we do. How can you explain that by your ideological principles?

Worked fine for over 100 years, people couldn't get to the US fast enough and we didn't have piles of dead bodies lining our streets.

Yes, in the days of Laudinum and leeches, it worked out fine.

That's on you. Forcing others to pay is immoral.


Americans will allow the welfare state to bankrupt the country, HC expenses will only be a part of that cost. The system is failing because it is immoral, and I'm saddened that you think immorality is practical despite the evidence to the contrary. Only a moral system is sustainable.

and yet, nowhere in the world is there a civilized society that doesn't collect taxes and use the money for collective benefit. Why is that?

But, you're right that the welfare state, along with our unsustainable health care system, is bankrupting the country.

 

[Dr.Who]

Where did I say we owe our citizenry food, housing, disability pay, old age pension?

I did say that it would be a lot cheaper and more practical to have a universal health insurance that covered everyone, but I didn't expect that to be free. Just a lot less expensive than what we have.

Face it: The current health care system consumes 18% of the GDP and is growing. That is unsustainable. Your idea of relying on charity isn't practical, i.e., won't work. Allowing citizens to die for lack of cash is not moral.
.

Yes it is. yes it will. they won't die.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

No healthcare system is free

It is just that the moral thing to do is make it free at the point of consumption

And for the hard of understanding who question the thread title... I don't agree that this is the only role of government

I am using your own right wing arguments against you

The US could leave defence down to citizens buying weapons and looking after themselves

But it spends trillions on a massive and disproportionate arsenal of nuclear weapons

Funny how the right think this ok when the biggest threat to Americans is rooted in poverty

High crime rates and people's life expectancy being shortened by curable illness that they can't afford to fix

That is why the US is ranked highest spender on healthcare and one of the worst providers of healthcare

It is healthcare for the rich but not for the poor which is what most black people are in the institutionally racist US

They are the facts

 

[Gipper]

I lose the will to live when I read posts like the one above

Then why are you still living?

And besides you distorted the meaning of Cruella's post. She was talking about the Vietnamese who have excelled in the USA, not the Vietnam War. Why did you post such a dishonest post?

And why do you lefties ALWAYS condemn America for civilian deaths in Vietnam, but ignore the much greater number of civilian deaths committed by the Commies? .....really just a rhetorical question....we know why...anti-Americanism is first and foremost...right?

Funny how you lefties are so consistent...you did the same with the USSR and the Chicoms. And now doing it with radical Islam.

 

[Dr.Who]

No healthcare system is free

True, and for the obvious reason that those who provide the healthcare should get paid what they ask and can persuade others to pay.

It is just that the moral thing to do is make it free at the point of consumption

Not at all. The only moral thing to do is make sure that when people trade healthcare for money that there is no fraud or coercion. Gov interference usually adds coercion.

And for the hard of understanding who question the thread title... I don't agree that this is the only role of government

It probably should be. But one thing is for certain the constitution does not give the federal government the authority to have the role of running healthcare.

I am using your own right wing arguments against you

?

The US could leave defence down to citizens buying weapons and looking after themselves

It could but the constitution lists this as a role of government at present. If citizense did organize to protect themselves it would probably look a whole lot like the people who are presently organized for this purpose that we call the military.

But it spends trillions on a massive and disproportionate arsenal of nuclear weapons

This armchair general agrees.

Funny how the right think this ok when the biggest threat to Americans is rooted in poverty

The military is authorized in the const but gov redistribution of wealth to alleviate poverty is not. Some on the right do not even approve of gov funded military but most do for the obvious reason that it is constitutional.

High crime rates and people's life expectancy being shortened by curable illness that they can't afford to fix

90% or so of all health care costs are preventable. If people treated their bodies right and skipped the twinkies, cigarettes, et al they would not need to be fixed most of the time. It IS the role of gov to do something about the crime rate. If the gov spent the trillions that were wasted on poverty on stopping crime instead it would not effect people so much.

That is why the US is ranked highest spender on healthcare and one of the worst providers of healthcare

The us spends too much because of gov intervention and you are asking for more of the same failed approach. We could cut the bill drastically if people had responsibility for their own health care which was supplemented by charity. If we did this and it did cost so much less then many more people could afford it and the amount of supplementation needed would be miniscule. We are actually one of the best providers of healthcare unless one uses a socialist measuring stick.

It is healthcare for the rich but not for the poor which is what most black people are in the institutionally racist US

huh?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh dear

Here we go again. The poor are poor because they are lazy and sick because they are stupid

Your healthcare system is crap and you want to make it worse

The spend on arms has very little to do with defence and mostly to do with attack

The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population

It spends billions imprisoning people on racial grounds and yet the crime rate is huge

In short it spends fortunes on wrecking lives but many don't want fortunes spent saving lives

You are so brainwashed