Democrats: Health care is a right
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
Originally Posted by R-Dub
.... and I refuse to have my taxes RAISED for it.
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
good. old people dont need new livers. its a waste of resources... old people die. it happens.
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,585
From: Los Altos, CA
Car Info: The Latest From WayneTech.
$50 co pay
$1,500 deductible
$100,000 Cap
$40 prescription
For say...$80 a month? I say go for it. But FREE should not be the word of the day. You gotta pay for coverage, albeit a pretty small amount.
Yes old people, and young, die - we all do. But that's a load of crap if my government gets to decide WHEN I have to!!
"I'm goings to says this in plains ****ing Englishes...I WANTS TO RIDES ON A ****ING DRAGONS!"
________
Coach Handbags
Last edited by kyoung05; Mar 30, 2011 at 09:55 AM.
Weird that it doesn't work that way in Sweden for example. As far as I know you are allowed to obtain your own medical insurance coverage if you prefer a specific doctor. So, rich people and poor people can get coverage.
Why is healthcare not a right? This is an honest question. Why should health be determined by wealth? I wonder if you would feel differently about this if you had no support system (family for example) and ran into a string of unfortunate circumstances that left you without a job or options.
Would being denied benefits based on medical history be a new thing? Because I know of people paying for their own benefits (ie, self employed, own the policy) who have been denied coverage based on history.
Why is healthcare not a right? This is an honest question. Why should health be determined by wealth? I wonder if you would feel differently about this if you had no support system (family for example) and ran into a string of unfortunate circumstances that left you without a job or options.
Would being denied benefits based on medical history be a new thing? Because I know of people paying for their own benefits (ie, self employed, own the policy) who have been denied coverage based on history.
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,351
From: pompous douchebag
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
I yelled and screamed at the insurance to cover the entire supply of insulin. They agreed to cover that and then went on to try to not cover the antiseptic wipes for the insulin pump. Yay infections! Infections cause your blood sugar to skyrocket uncontrollably. And then, because your blood sugar is high, that gives the bacteria more to feed on, making it harder to get rid of. Wonderful how the insurance just looks at initial cost (not even bottom line). ****, they aren't even good businessmen 
Since the antiseptic wipes I haven't had an issue, but it's coming time to replace the insulin pump, we'll see how that goes.
Since the antiseptic wipes I haven't had an issue, but it's coming time to replace the insulin pump, we'll see how that goes.if you work for a large company, odds are it is your employer mandating these policies and not the health plan administrator.
if you want better coverage, go with an employer who offers it.
Health care is not a right in the same way that ownership of a car is not a right, or how housing is not a right, or how food is not a right. This is what it means to live in a capitalistic society. The state may owe you the opportunity to be able to generate the means with which to buy these things, but they themselves are not owed to you. There is no right to have a roof over your head, there is no right to transportation, no right to not be hungry. If you look at the Bill of Rights, you'll see that essentially, you have the right to do what you want, with "minimal" government interference, but there is no right to some government-mandated standard of living. Basically, you only "deserve/are entitled to" what you can earn.
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
why not raise rates for people who eat McDonalds and drink soda all the time? or just tax those high risk foods and use the money to fund EXISTING medical social nets.
Originally Posted by R-Dub
What I mean to say is that if the government wants to set up a insurance program that is somewhat like the following:
Originally Posted by R-Dub
$50 co pay
$1,500 deductible
$100,000 Cap
$40 prescription
$1,500 deductible
$100,000 Cap
$40 prescription
Originally Posted by R-Dub
For say...$80 a month? I say go for it. But FREE should not be the word of the day.
Originally Posted by R-Dub
You gotta pay for coverage, albeit a pretty small amount.
Originally Posted by R-Dub
I'm not talking livers, I've heard declinations due to age for hips, preventative heart care, and ER treatments.
Yes old people, and young, die - we all do. But that's a lol
Yes old people, and young, die - we all do. But that's a lol
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
Health care is not a right in the same way that ownership of a car is not a right, or how housing is not a right, or how food is not a right. This is what it means to live in a capitalistic society. The state may owe you the opportunity to be able to generate the means with which to buy these things, but they themselves are not owed to you. There is no right to have a roof over your head, there is no right to transportation, no right to not be hungry. If you look at the Bill of Rights, you'll see that essentially, you have the right to do what you want, with "minimal" government interference, but there is no right to some government-mandated standard of living. Basically, you only "deserve/are entitled to" what you can earn.
uptop, sir.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Health care is not a right in the same way that ownership of a car is not a right, or how housing is not a right, or how food is not a right. This is what it means to live in a capitalistic society. The state may owe you the opportunity to be able to generate the means with which to buy these things, but they themselves are not owed to you. There is no right to have a roof over your head, there is no right to transportation, no right to not be hungry. If you look at the Bill of Rights, you'll see that essentially, you have the right to do what you want, with "minimal" government interference, but there is no right to some government-mandated standard of living. Basically, you only "deserve/are entitled to" what you can earn.
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,585
From: Los Altos, CA
Car Info: The Latest From WayneTech.
I agree mostly with every other part of your response except for this one:
No matter how good you eat, how much you exercise and how often you get a check up; fact is you can and most likely WILL run into health problems - but the point I want to keep is that the government should NOT have the right/ability to tell person A they can live and person B they cannot.
I'll be damned if I am going to let a government tell me when it's my time to go.
No matter how good you eat, how much you exercise and how often you get a check up; fact is you can and most likely WILL run into health problems - but the point I want to keep is that the government should NOT have the right/ability to tell person A they can live and person B they cannot.
I'll be damned if I am going to let a government tell me when it's my time to go.