Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Eukaryote, Jun 24, 2006.
Simple Question really. I consider it a form of insurance. How 'bout you?
It sounds good and nice and all but where is the money to pay for free health care going to come from? And what if someone de-frauds the free healthcare system somehow? If it's the tax payer that's going to be footing the bill, why should I pay for the free healthcare of a dare devil or a smoker?
I say handout, but not in a bad way.......
We need universal health care. Everyone should be able to have it.
I voted insurance as I believe education and healthcare should be the top 2 things a government should grant for free to it's people.
It would seem to depend on whether you consider society to be made up of a bunch of individuals, with no obligations towards each other, or as a group of people with a common destiny.
With the second view, you may well ask if not providing people with health-care is afordable?
Same thing with education.
National defence, education and health-care is the traditional triple obligation of the nation state. Fail one of them long enough and you're in trouble. If trying to improve society you can't skimp on either too badly. It's only possible if you already have a relatively wealthy population. Then you can leave it up to the individual citizen I suppose. It does depend a bit on how much inegality and exploitation of weaker members of society they are prepared to accept in general though.
Interesting, I agree on the need, but I don't see the reasoning as you do.
Kinda like in the recent thread about welfare... I don't think its necessary due to my love for other people. I think its necessary due to my own self-interest. Whether its welfare, national health insurance, unemployment benefits, whatever... any program that tries to alleviate poverty and suffering is in my best interest.
If you dont do a single thing but still get it.......its a handout.
Sorry...I just dont feel the need to pay for someones methadone treatments.
Or their 12 step program.
Or any of the rest of the crap people should be held responsible for, but do anyway....and then depend upon the productive people to bail them out time after time after time.
@MobBoss: You pay for murdrers to have food to eat as it is. Why would you not pay for someone to have healthcare that has a disability?
oh because once someone screws up they're screwed for life right
wwjd? leave them in the streets? please strive to be like christ instead of just saying that its impossible to be as good as him. we all know but at least trying to help people is good
I don't know what to think of it, but it can't be all bad.
Why oppose it on principle? If its more efficient than privatized health care, why oppose it on some ******** "personal responsibility" tutelage?
Not to mention that the program would benefit more people than it would simply be a hand out to. Even pooling all those people together you list MobBoss, the majority any country is hardworking people. But 75ish% of the people should not be allowed free healthcare by the government that taxes them, instead they should make sure our lifetime prisoners have fluffy pillows to bite on and food to eat.
Sounds dandy doesn't it. Problem is that advocates of a universal healthcare system leave one critical word out when debate the topic: rationing.
There's simply not enough medical services or money in the world to insure even minimum coverage , so the result will simply be a small check in the mail or a $10 savings or something of that nature and months long waiting lists to get critical operations.
And with the millions of illegal immigrants flooding the US ever year who will provide for them? Certainly not themselves since they pay no taxes (and even if made legal, wouldn't pay enough taxes to support the program).
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it works in small countries with relatively stable populations with high incomes (ex: Scandinavia) but in countries the size and scope of the US with clear givers and takers, it isn't feasible.
why not just pay government employed doctors and assign people to them. idk, im horrible with economics and all that stuff but that would make a lot of sense
and plus why not make the rich pay for health insurance but insure the poor completely and the middle class partially.
and why pay for someone who isnt a citizen? if they have money they can pay for it themselves
Tell you what...you put those people who continue addictive behavior into an institution like criminals are in prison and I will pay for it.
But we are not talking diabilities here. We are talking people who LIKE taking drugs and alcohol and such and will not respond to treatment. I have no desire to subsidize someones "good times" with my money thank you very much.
There is really no way to say if it can or can't be done without seing the budget and where costs needed to be cut in order to do so. As is they say it's impossible so we must accept that. Now I know the amount of money flowing in the government. Sure they couldn't afford it if 50% of the population had a seizure/heart attack at the same time. Nor would they have the manpower even if none of these people were the doctors. But on an average basis this would fluctuate much like a light bill - not a constant but you could ballpark about how much it will cost for a year.
I feel it is becoming more and more important in America to not ask what you can do for your country but what your country is doing for you. Especially, if you are below high middle class.
Obviously you dont know much about addiction do you?
Most likely he would feed them, as I have done in the past. He sure as hell wouldnt hand them a bottle, or a needle or throw cash at them.
Unlike many here, I have actually spent time feeding homeless people. That is a valid need. But I dont endorse programs that "enable" people to continue in their destructive lifestyles. That is simply NOT what Jesus would do thank you very much.
Well, first off this is a small amount of the country's population. So obviously, the amount of good it will do is negated by a very small number of freeloaders. I fail to see any non-judgemental logic in this.
This statement reflects the attitude shown when a bum asks for money and the charactor in question of the hand-out refuses because "they will buy booze with it".
Someone is casting stones.
I see it as a form of insurance.
Free Health Care is good for people who cannot afford it.
yes, i know what an addiction is, thats why i think they should be given treatment to help them and why should the government pay for that? isnt that what you are talking about? or am i wrong?
but yes, i do commend you for feeding the homeless, i didnt mean to insinuate that you were a failure of a christian but the thing is most christians that ive known have never helped anyone like that in their lives.
Separate names with a comma.