• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

Universal Health Care in America?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 68 61.8%

  • No!

    Votes: 24 21.8%

  • Don't care.

    Votes: 2 1.8%

  • I don't know enough either way to answer right now.

    Votes: 10 9.1%

  • Universal Shemp Care.

    Votes: 6 5.5%
  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
Yet, the current system isn't doing a great job as it is, and it's about as free market as it gets.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except all that free care everyone gets and doesn't have to pay for. So if your car starts to act up, do you throw it away?
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Who said that??? I think I said man/woman need to take better care of themselves (if I didn't thats what I meant).
Click to expand...


Here's what you said.

DaN K. StAnLeY said:
People, in general, just need to man/woman-up and start taking care of themselves better.
Click to expand...


Maybe a bit of both, but far closer to what I remembered than to what you're now trying to claim. Sounds very much like a call for everyone to be self-sufficient and rely on their own resources.

Rolfe.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Why is that a bad thing. If someone doesn't want help or need it, whats it to you?
Click to expand...

I was wandering the grand canyon with a friend the other day. He was so clumsy and worrying so much about stuffing his face with a granola bar, that he managed to trip, and was hanging off the cliffside by his bare hands. He was about to slip and couldn't possibly pull himself up.

I didn't really feel like helping him. It wasn't my responsibility, after all; it was his to avoid that damn edge in the first place. His body is down there somewhere.

I love that American spirit!
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Yes, they gave the money voluntarily. They weren't forced to do it. Thats whats great abouot America. If you want to contribute to a common cause you can. If you don't want to, that's fine too.
Click to expand...


Rolfe said:
On the other side of that coin, hear the rant from the exploited philanthropist. Why should it be left to me and others like me to bear the whole burden of feeding the poor/providing healthcare to the indigent/building the new town hall? Joe Bloggs has just as much money as me, but the tight-fisted miser won't part with a penny he doesn't have to. It's not fair!

Too damn right it's not fair. Voluntary charitable contributions from the wealthy could support the system even 100 years ago, when social pressures (noblesse oblige, and all that) could usually be counted on to see that most of the wealthy did their bit. Not now, I fear. Too easy to be a Joe Bloggs, and just hang on to the stuff. While you, or at least your family and employees, take advantage of the philanthropy of others.

Hence this peculiar, commie notion of taxes. Because it's fair. Sure, you lose that lovely philanthropic glow you get when you donate money (or goods or time) on a voluntary basis, and instead you get a mean-spirited resentment of the compulsion. Or at least you do if you haven't thought it through. But it's fair, and it works.

Get over it.
Click to expand...


Is this really the crux of the disagreement? That in America the whole idea of fairness in contributions is anathema, because of the taint of "communism"? So that it's absolutely fine if Daddy Warbucks keeps all his money to himself, leaving the burden of charity to those with better-developed consciences.

Oh, grow up.

Rolfe.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Yeah, except all that free care everyone gets and doesn't have to pay for. So if your car starts to act up, do you throw it away?
Click to expand...

Unless I'm getting you wrong... are you saying that your desire to "fix" the system is to remove food stamps, and similar things that help some people live?
 
I didn't really feel like helping him. It wasn't my responsibility, after all; it was his to avoid that damn edge in the first place. His body is down there somewhere.
Click to expand...

Thats a horrible example. You have an interest in saving the guy. Someone else might not feel the need to help your friend if he's a stranger to them. Sure that may be bad for the guy who's falling, but to force someone to risk their life for a stranger is silly.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
I don't like the idea of uni-health because it doesn't encourage people to be personally responsible for their own lives.
Click to expand...
As I said, which you may have missed, insurance as a concept is about sharing risk. Not bearing it yourself. It is about the fortunate compensating the unfortunate because they don't know ahead of time if they will be fortunate. Hence they will in many many cases rationally opt to pool (share) the responsibility. And this makes perfect sense since, as responsible as you might think you are, you can't remove all the risks to your well being.

Does your statement of die-hard responsibility mean you refuse any and all forms of insurance? Because if you are insured for anything you are selling (diversifying) responsibility for things that happen in your life.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Thats a horrible example. You have an interest in saving the guy. Someone else might not feel the need to help your friend if he's a stranger to them. Sure that may be bad for the guy who's falling, but to force someone to risk their life for a stranger is silly.
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing me your colors.
 
Unless I'm getting you wrong... are you saying that your desire to "fix" the system is to remove food stamps, and similar things that help some people live?
Click to expand...

Not remove, just fix. Get all the moochers off.
 
Thanks for showing me your colors.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I wouldn't help your friend. I might have, but I'm not going to fault someone who doesn't want to possibly go over the ledge with him. What if the person helping isn't strong enough? Should they both die just so your soc idea can thrive??
 
As I said, which you may have missed, insurance as a concept is about sharing risk. Not bearing it yourself. It is about the fortunate compensating the unfortunate because they don't know ahead of time if they will be fortunate. Hence they will in many many cases rationally opt to pool (share) the responsibility. And this makes perfect sense since, as responsible as you might think you are, you can't remove all the risks to your well being.

Does your statement of die-hard responsibility mean you refuse any and all forms of insurance? Because if you are insured for anything you are selling (diversifying) responsibility for things that happen in your life.
Click to expand...

So insurance companies are just the worlds largest NPO's?
 
Individualism at its most extreme, the attitude that I'll take care of myself and be beholden to nobody, and everybody else had better do likewise
Click to expand...


DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Why is that a bad thing. If someone doesn't want help or need it, whats it to you?
Click to expand...


Let me draw you a picture.

.... and everybody else had better do likewise
Click to expand...


Or to put it more plainly, not everyone is in the fortunate position of not needing help.

Rolfe.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
I didn't say I wouldn't help your friend. I might have, but I'm not going to fault someone who doesn't want to possibly go over the ledge with him. What if the person helping isn't strong enough? Should they both die just so your soc idea can thrive??
Click to expand...

Here's where the analogy breaks down. Under "my" "soc" theory (thanks for awarding me ownership! But no, I didn't quite come up with this thing on my own), the people that are "strong enough" would be able to support the person over the edge, as everyone would be contributing.
 
Here's where the analogy breaks down. Under "my" "soc" theory (thanks for awarding me ownership! But no, I didn't quite come up with this thing on my own), the people that are "strong enough" would be able to support the person over the edge, as everyone would be contributing.
Click to expand...

Then your example was a pretty bad one.
 
How would you do that, exactly, without impeding on every citizen's privacy in unprecedented ways?
Click to expand...

That is the million dollar question. There was some girl at work yesterday telling another co-worker how to cheat the system. The one who was running the scam is collecting a check for her kids, while married, so she can pay off her bankruptcy she filed, LOL! I think people who are personally responsible for themselves would be ashamed to cheat for a living.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom