Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die? Hell, we should assist them. :thumbs:
Well, if they are uninsured because they are poor, we already do. Did you have more in mind? Payments to their families for neglecting them to death, mayhaps? Easier access to poisons in poor neighborhoods?
I'm sorry, there is nothing in the consitution that says you have a right to medical treatment.
More importantly...I'm sorry, there is nothing in the consitution that says you have a right to medical treatment.
This lame argument grates on me, tessaesque. So much of modern life is not contemplated by the original constitution. The Framers were not seers.
Wanna dissasemble the NTSB as well?
I'm sorry if it grates on you, but it isn't a lame argument. Medical treatment is a product. Nobody has the right to a product. You may feel as though we morally obligated to give free products to people, but I don't feel that way. We must focus on making people self-sustainable instead of focusing on freebies and hand-outs. If you took everything from the "haves" and gave it to the "have nots" out of some moral imperative to help the "downtrodden" we wouldn't be able to sustain for much longer than a few months. This idea that the rich must take care of the "poor" can very easily lead to a situation where so much money has gone into helping a group of people stagnate that there is no "rich", and nowhere for the money to come from...but the problem will still exist.
I totally get helping people. But you're doing it wrong if you think the best way to do that is to take from everybody else first. That doesn't help...not really. It transfers the problems on to the backs of another group...and when that group is the solution to every single problem we have....the solution will disappear eventually.
So if you feel as though everybody needs access to healthcare, why don't you focus on creating solutions that will allow people to provide if for themselves, instead of stealing from others.
So much anger in your post. Taxes are not "stealing". Covering everyone means that the middle class family with a devastating injury or illness need not fear the lifetime cap, etc.
I get that you had bad experiences with medical care delivered by the government.....others have not. Must we all be denied care because you are fearful?
So much anger in your post. Taxes are not "stealing". Covering everyone means that the middle class family with a devastating injury or illness need not fear the lifetime cap, etc.
First of all, I'm not angry. I'm a realist.
Taxes are most certainly "stealing" when you take disporportionately from one group to benefit another, isolated group. If healthcare is too expensive then fix the problems in healthcare. Don't solve the problem by using the "rich" as a scapegoat. Every single financial problem we have...the solution is always "we've gotta tax the rich more, we gotta get it from them." They aren't an unlimited fountain of funds. You keep using them as the source of all your solutions and eventually the well's going to run dry.
Then what? How do you give more and more and more to people who are perfectly capable once you've taken everything from the top 5%?...when they're now in that pool of "poor" needing help? Where do you go then?
I'm telling you. Fix what's wrong with the system before you demand that other people act as the bandaid. Stop ignoring that the problem isn't fixed simply by taking more money from the rich. Stop acting like those of us who view it pragmatically are heartless, or afraid. We realize what none of y'all want to admit. Your stupid little idea of going after the top 5% is just as unsustainable (if not more so) than any other system or solution suggested. You're ignoring the bigger issue for the sake of continuing some sort of bull**** class warfare nonsense.
"Covering everyone" means forcing people to pay for goods and services rendered to someone else.
This is nothing more than involutary servitude, a form of slavery.
Really.
Please show how your response flows logically from what I said in the post you responded to.
Before you further embarass yourself, you should probably go back and read what that post said.
I am -absolutely- correct.
You clearly do not understand the point.
No... not the value of money... but the value of the time and effort that the person who is paying for the goods and services he did not receive expended in order to cover the costs of your medical care, and his right to retain these things for his own use.
After all, HE earned it; you did not.
You're arguing that your right supercedes his, and so he should pay for your medical treatment.
With an apalling degree of inefficacy.
Hyberpole much?
Apples and oranges. Highways are not goods/services provided to someone else - medical treatment is.We are all "forced" to pay for highways we'll never use, etc.
Apparently you have fogotten that the statemt you responded to was....It's really rather tragic that have to break this down for you step by step. It's basic knowledge, but then again, I have found that people who adhere to extreme political ideologies don't follow logic very well. Nevertheless, here is the scenario:
1.) A man is uninsured and does not have sufficient income to pay for his health care.
2.) He becomes extremely ill and needs treatment to stay alive.
3.) He goes to a health care provider, but is refused care because he doesn't have the funds to cover it, and he is sent home to die.
Therefore, it follows that:
1.) The services given by the health care providers are of equal or exceeding value than his life; Otherwise, if his life had more value than the health care services, it follows that he would have been provided with said health care services.
Got it now? Definitely not a non sequitur.
As I said: Non sequitur.You give the provider the choice to treat him at risk of doing so w/o compenation, or to not treat him.
If they choose to treat someone that cannot pay, then they choose to take whatever loss that may result.
See above.What do I not understand?
Not at all.It is illogical to attempt to separate money from goods and services when people exchange the value of their goods and services for money.
No kidding -- it is -very- clear that you want to impose your version of morality of others, and force people to pay for the implementation of same. Most people like you don't admit this. Good for you.However, I am attempting to address an ethical issue here.
This has been addressed. Re-asking the questiuon will not result in a different answer.I pay for my own goods and services. But some people cannot. Once again, does the value of the goods and services (monetary value) provided supersede the value of a human life? Yes or no?
Which, as we see, has been supported in full.You are entitled to your opinion.
More importantly...
There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the goverment to force other people to provide medical treatment to you.
I wonder why conservatives devised the idea of an insurance mandate then?
Herring, red.I wonder why conservatives devised the idea of an insurance mandate then?
Herring, red.
:roll:
When, as now, they are not germane to the topic at hand and introduced in order to misdirect the conversation away from a point you cannot defend, yes.Facts are red herrings to you eh?
When, as now, they are not germane to the topic at hand and introduced in order to misdirect the conversation away from a point you cannot defend, yes.
Recess is over - you better head back inside.
I wonder why conservatives devised the idea of an insurance mandate then?
The discussion, as should be clear to you, is about the morality of letting people die if they cannot pay for their medical care.The origin of the health insurance mandate is not germane to a discussion of the health insurance mandate???
That certan Republicans (note that Republicans and conservatives are not necessarily the same thing) supported the idea of an insurance mandate is not germane to that discussion - and, as such, you are doing nothing other than trying to derail the thread with your red herring.
At this point, it's all they have.was wondering how long it would take.....