If state provided healthcare is so bad....

[Dawkinsrocks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Quote from the above link. It requires no comment. Anyone who supports the US approach to healthcare and claims to be a patriot is a liar

''Active debate about health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, choice, value, and quality. Some have argued that the system does not deliver equivalent value for the money spent. The USA pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy. Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.[nb 1][9] In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[10]
Life expectancy at birth in the USA is 50th in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union.[11][12] The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[13][14] The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries,[15] and notes U.S. care costs the most.[16]
The USA is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage (i.e., some kind of private or public health insurance).[17] In 2004, the Institute of Medicine report observed "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States."[17] while a 2009 Harvard study estimated that 44,800 excess deaths occurred annually due to lack of health insurance.[18]''

 

[GenSeneca]

...health care is a "survival need."

Do you believe we have a "right" to everything necessary to survive?
Should government provide us with everything we need to survive?

 

[GenSeneca]

Of course you must use your brain and may I suggest your conscience to determine who is right

You believe Health Care is a Right,

Do you believe you have the right to force another individual to work, without compensation, for your own personal benefit? Does that individual also have the right to force you to work, without compensation, for his own personal benefit?

What do your brain and conscience have to say about forcing one individual, under threat of punishment, to engage in uncompensated labor for the benefit of another individual?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your healthcare system is expensive, shit, discriminatory and is responsible for US having high infant mortality, shorter lives and many avoidable deaths

US healthcare is more dangerous to Americans than AQ

Only someone who is mentally ill would try to shift the discussion to rights when your fellow countrymen are dying in their thousands because of this vicious failed policy

The USA is a shithole with a disproportionate population of lunatics

 

[Openmind]

You believe Health Care is a Right,

Do you believe you have the right to force another individual to work, without compensation, for your own personal benefit? Does that individual also have the right to force you to work, without compensation, for his own personal benefit?

What do your brain and conscience have to say about forcing one individual, under threat of punishment, to engage in uncompensated labor for the benefit of another individual?

Once again, you are expressing unrealistic and irrational scenarios!
Who is requiring anyone to work without compensation for the benefit of another individual?
NO ONE!

But, in the other hand, YOU seem to be putting the welfare of people, their health, their life in a false equivalency with GREED, the "right" to increase one's already ridiculous wealth at the expense of people who are unable to make enough money to cover the ever increasing cost of a health care system made ONLY for the wealthy. . .because it is a FACT that many bancrupcies among otherwise middle class families are due to their trying to cover the ridiculous health care costs when faced with a life threatening illness in their family.

No matter how you want to look at it, no matter what this crazy political season will bring, no matter whether the craziness and the greed wins in November, YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE of the issue. You are for greed and continued suffering of the poor and the middle class and in favor of the unconscionable increase in wealth for those who already don't know what to do with the wealth they have!

And yet, you seem to present yourself in many posts as a "Christian!"
Sick!

 

[dogtowner]

Once again, you are expressing unrealistic and irrational scenarios!
Who is requiring anyone to work without compensation for the benefit of another individual?
NO ONE!

government. ever heard of Tax Freedom Day ? on average one works into April before meeting your tax obligation. the portion of which goes not to expenses of government not allocated equally to all is what Gen is referring to.

regarding being Christian, if the government were not keeping (most all have taxes withheld) one would be able to use it for charity without the massive overhead. that is, more benefit to those in need.

 

[Gipper]

Once again, you are expressing unrealistic and irrational scenarios!
Who is requiring anyone to work without compensation for the benefit of another individual?
NO ONE!

But, in the other hand, YOU seem to be putting the welfare of people, their health, their life in a false equivalency with GREED, the "right" to increase one's already ridiculous wealth at the expense of people who are unable to make enough money to cover the ever increasing cost of a health care system made ONLY for the wealthy. . .because it is a FACT that many bancrupcies among otherwise middle class families are due to their trying to cover the ridiculous health care costs when faced with a life threatening illness in their family.

No matter how you want to look at it, no matter what this crazy political season will bring, no matter whether the craziness and the greed wins in November, YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE of the issue. You are for greed and continued suffering of the poor and the middle class and in favor of the unconscionable increase in wealth for those who already don't know what to do with the wealth they have!

And yet, you seem to present yourself in many posts as a "Christian!"
Sick!

This is a very insightful post. It clearly shows how the mind of a leftist works. The leftist fails or refuses to recognize how socialism REALLY works. They do not realize their freebies result from taking BY FORCE. They do not see the takings as force or unfair. They see it as FAIR. The productive should pay for the unproductive. And, they are oblivious to the negative societal consequences that arise from these takings over time.

But it goes much further, the mind of a leftist immediately concludes that if you disagree with the taking of property by governmental force, you are greedy. You want the poor to die. You are un-Christian. YOU ARE EVIL!!!

The leftist believes that ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN PROVIDE. There are no other options. Ignoring the fact that for most of America's history, federal entitlement programs did not exist, yet we became the world's preeminent economic power with per capita income and living standards never seen before.

In addition, the leftist does not concern themselves with the rising and bankrupting costs of entitlement programs. It just means the productive should pay more. The $5 TRILLION BO has added to the debt is inconsequential. They fail to see the HUGE flaws inherent with Socialism. It is a giant pozi scheme, but this is meaningless to the leftist. They want their freebies and the productive should damn well pay for it.

Proof of their PSYCHOSIS is they reaction to Europe's crashing under Socialism? You have to be psychotic not to see what is in store for America if we continue down this hellish path. And, BO submits a budget that projects another $5 TRILLION in debt...

 

[GenSeneca]

Who is requiring anyone to work without compensation for the benefit of another individual?

The US Government. Bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks and tax incentives are all examples of some people benefitting at the expense of everyone else.

And yet, you seem to present yourself in many posts as a "Christian!"

In regards to religion, I have never presented myself as being anything other than an Atheist.

Now, please be so good as to answer the questions I posed to you in reply #92.

 

[Openmind]

The US Government. Bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks and tax incentives are all examples of some people benefitting at the expense of everyone else.

In regards to religion, I have never presented myself as being anything other than an Atheist.

Now, please be so good as to answer the questions I posed to you in reply #92.

I have answered. If you do not understand my answer, it is no use going back over it.
The government has a duty to even up the odds for people who obviously do not have the same advantages. However, over the last 30 years at least, the government has been catering to the wealthy and the policies (especially tax policies) have overwhelmingly benefited the very wealthy. . .which is totally against the intent of the constitution and just make it even harder for the majority to reach the "American dream."

So, while I was not a big supporter of bailouts for the bank, I was in favor of a bailout for the automobile industry. . .which proved beneficial for the middle class. I am AGAINST subsidies to big corporations, especially those who consistently show huge profits, but continue to increase the price of their products (i.e., oil industry) and those who send jobs oversea to increase profits for their stock holders (especially the very wealthy, once again). Tax breaks and tax incentives once again are overwhelmingly designed to benefit the wealthy.

If you are an atheist, what is your beef with the coverage of birth control by private insurance, even if it is for businesses such as Catholic hospitals? Doesn't make sense to me.

If you are not satisfy with my answer, this is all I care to provide.

 

[Gipper]

I have answered. If you do not understand my answer, it is no use going back over it.
The government has a duty to even up the odds for people who obviously do not have the same advantages. However, over the last 30 years at least, the government has been catering to the wealthy and the policies (especially tax policies) have overwhelmingly benefited the very wealthy. . .which is totally against the intent of the constitution and just make it even harder for the majority to reach the "American dream."

So, while I was not a big supporter of bailouts for the bank, I was in favor of a bailout for the automobile industry. . .which proved beneficial for the middle class. I am AGAINST subsidies to big corporations, especially those who consistently show huge profits, but continue to increase the price of their products (i.e., oil industry) and those who send jobs oversea to increase profits for their stock holders (especially the very wealthy, once again). Tax breaks and tax incentives once again are overwhelmingly designed to benefit the wealthy.

If you are an atheist, what is your beef with the coverage of birth control by private insurance, even if it is for businesses such as Catholic hospitals? Doesn't make sense to me.

If you are not satisfy with my answer, this is all I care to provide.

Another insightful post exposing the mind of liberal.

If one is an atheist, why in the world would they object to the heavy hand of a tyrannical government imposing it's will on the Church.

The liberal does not see that liberty taken from one group can ultimately result in you losing your liberty.

 

[GenSeneca]

I have answered.

Not that I saw... They were simple Yes or No questions which you refused to answer directly but I suppose we could infer the following:

Yes, you do believe individuals have a "right" to any product or service that is "essential" for survival.
And...
Yes, you do believe that government should provide every product or service "essential" for survival.

If you truly believe those things, then you believe some individuals should be forced to provide products and services to other individuals without compensation.

If you are an atheist, what is your beef with the coverage of birth control by private insurance, even if it is for businesses such as Catholic hospitals?

The government is violating the Free Exercise clause of the first amendment by forcing Catholic organizations to carry insurance plans that cover products and services antithetical to the teachings of the church.

 

[BigRob]

The government has a duty to even up the odds for people who obviously do not have the same advantages.

What??

However, over the last 30 years at least, the government has been catering to the wealthy and the policies (especially tax policies) have overwhelmingly benefited the very wealthy. . .which is totally against the intent of the constitution and just make it even harder for the majority to reach the "American dream."

Those tax policies that "benefit the wealthy" have in fact created so many breaks and exceptions that HALF the country (read the middle class) pays no federal income tax at all.

So, while I was not a big supporter of bailouts for the bank, I was in favor of a bailout for the automobile industry. . .which proved beneficial for the middle class. I am AGAINST subsidies to big corporations, especially those who consistently show huge profits, but continue to increase the price of their products (i.e., oil industry) and those who send jobs oversea to increase profits for their stock holders (especially the very wealthy, once again). Tax breaks and tax incentives once again are overwhelmingly designed to benefit the wealthy.

This is class warfare -- plain and simple. You don't oppose government bailouts, you just didn't like who got them -- because they were not poor enough -- that is essentially what you are saying.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Reform obama's health legislation and kill lots of Americans

AQ could only dream of doing as much damage

 

[Openmind]

What??

If you can't figure it out. . .that's your problem.

Those tax policies that "benefit the wealthy" have in fact created so many breaks and exceptions that HALF the country (read the middle class) pays no federal income tax at all.

Yes, sure. . .so what? The fact is that people making under $25,000 pay no or very little FEDERAL taxes (although they still pay all the other taxes!). And. . .if you think clearly and rationally, it is exactly the same for people making $100,000, or $500,000 or $10 millions! THEY DO NOT PAY TAX ON THE FIRST $25,000 OF EARNINGS. . .That sounds pretty fair.
So. . .what is your complaint? That people making $25,000 a year do not pay tax on money they don't make?
Doesn't make much sense to me!

This is class warfare -- plain and simple. You don't oppose government bailouts, you just didn't like who got them -- because they were not poor enough -- that is essentially what you are saying.

Class warfare has been in effect for at least 30 years. . .except that it is easy to hide, when it is only a small minority of people (1% or less) who wage "war" on the rest! Why do you think the income inequality has sky rocketed in the US? Because the Poor and the middle class are "waging class warfare on the poor wealthy 1%?
And, you're right. I wasn't very happy with the BANK bailouts because that money was given to people who created the problem to start with by their greed and their stupidity. They created instruments of doom, and even when they realize it, instead of backing off and trying to fix the huge problems they had provoked, they "bought insurance" to cover THEIR asses. . .but not that of the majority of peole. And still, they were stupid enough to buy that "insurance" from people like AIG who used the little guy's money to "supposedly" cover the greed of the banks and Wall Street. . .but didn't have enough to cover it. . .so the government had to do it.

However, if instead of hoping for a "trickle down" of the bailout money, that would ALSO benefit the people who lost so much (and who could truly not afford it), they should have used a "bubble up" bailout. . .by providing the money to people in trouble with their mortgage, who would then have been able to pay their mortgage and thus kept the banks going anyway!

Have you read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis. Probably not, since it is not a "Right Wing only view of the crisis!"

 

[dogtowner]

And, you're right. I wasn't very happy with the BANK bailouts because that money was given to people who created the problem to start with by their greed and their stupidity.

sadly I cant find the article I read a while back (came through Yahoo Fiancial) that was making the case that it was when Wall Streeters got very smart that the seeds were laid for the recent problems. Way back when trading was simple and, by today's standards, infrequent making it not particularly difficult being a broker. so when regulation started it forced them to become smart. Reagan was right, govt is the problem and not the solution.