• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

Is access to health care a privilege, right or responsibility?


  • Total voters
    91
Then finance it, or learn to accept fate.
Hey, I have a great idea! Lets go murder some random people and take their hearts out and use them for transplants! With more hearts available, the cost of a new heart is bound to go down.

What? it's either that or stem cells, and we all know that the use of stem cells is evil and uncouth!
 
Any insurance is going to do that, private, or subsidized. I didn't answer it, because you aren't going to like my answer.

I'm guessing if you are hesitant to discuss it on a public forum, it would have little to any chance of being acceptable to the majority of voters.
 
Hey, I have a great idea! Lets go murder some random people and take their hearts out and use them for transplants! With more hearts available, the cost of a new heart is bound to go down.

What? it's either that or stem cells, and we all know that the use of stem cells is evil and uncouth!

Oh look, the worthless partisan talking points have arrived in their usual lack-luster form.
 
I'm guessing if you are hesitant to discuss it on a public forum, it would have little to any chance of being acceptable to the majority of voters.

I'm not worried about voters liking it or not. I'm a very unlikeable person with very unlikeable ideas.
 
Then finance it, or learn to accept fate.

Your answer is that only the super wealthy get medical treatment? I wonder why no politician has ever ran on that platform and won?
 
Last edited:
Every dollar you have the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility for is what I mean.

Eh or lack of responsibility, I'm not a big fan of fiat currency. Expanding credit crazily, creating all these booms and bust, keeping interest rates low, creating mal investment, etc.
 
Your answer is that only the super wealthy get medical treatment? I wonder why no politician has ever ran on that platform and won?

W/O the masses being in the system the uber wealthy would not have health care as we know it and its terrific accomplishments.
 
I'm not worried about voters liking it or not. I'm a very unlikeable person with very unlikeable ideas.

So you don't seriously think this plan could ever get passed. We are in agreement there.
 
What appeal to emotion?

BTW there ain't 7 billion people in the world:

World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance - Google Public Data Explorer

And and not all 6.8+ billion people are causing harm.

6.9 as of 2010. Here's something more up to date:

US Census Bureau

The amount of people is causing major problems. More people means more energy needed, more production, more industrialization, more cars on the road, more food consumed, more land taken, etc etc etc.
 
6.9 as of 2010. Here's something more up to date:

US Census Bureau

The amount of people is causing major problems. More people means more energy needed, more production, more industrialization, more cars on the road, more food consumed, more land taken, etc etc etc.

That's why we need government. To craft policies that give the appearance of abundance despite booming population and dwindling resources.
 
So you don't seriously think this plan could ever get passed. We are in agreement there.

Nobody in their right mind would approve of such a thing. even I wouldn't vote for it, but mass reduction of population will at some point become entirely necessary, and part of that is to allow the surplus population to die off.
 
6.9 as of 2010. Here's something more up to date:

US Census Bureau

The amount of people is causing major problems. More people means more energy needed, more production, more industrialization, more cars on the road, more food consumed, more land taken, etc etc etc.

Well thanxs for proving your 7 billion + statement wrong.

Speaking of the weak dying.....
 
Nobody in their right mind would approve of such a thing. even I wouldn't vote for it, but mass reduction of population will at some point become entirely necessary, and part of that is to allow the surplus population to die off.

I disagree, the brits were facing the same "shortage" of food and resources when they were shipping people off to the colonies. Mercantilism is retarded ;) allow free markets to operate, quit stupid subsidies and protectionist tariffs.
 
Your answer is that only the super wealthy get medical treatment? I wonder why no politician has ever ran on that platform and won?

Depends. If they can get the service they live. If not, they die. If they piss on the wrong persons corn flakes, they get shot to death and the health care they get doesn't matter anyway. I honestly don't care about the wealthy, or the poor, or the middle class, or any other social class. Humans are rare in that we are the only species that damns everything in existence simply because we exist.
 
Nobody in their right mind would approve of such a thing. even I wouldn't vote for it, but mass reduction of population will at some point become entirely necessary, and part of that is to allow the surplus population to die off.


Now you have me really confused. You oppose killing people in wars for resources, but you approve of eliminating "surplus population" through denial of health care?
 
Back
Top Bottom