Teh Politics Forum Rumors and lies and Teh Iraqi Info Minister and much much more...

Still Want Socialist Healthcare?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-28-2008, 03:20 PM
  #1  
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
FW Motorsports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Still Want Socialist Healthcare?

Don't treat the old and unhealthy

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

...Obesity costs the British taxpayer £7 billion a year....
FW Motorsports is offline  
Old 01-28-2008, 08:40 PM
  #2  
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Kevin M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
I didn't see anything mentioned in that article that doesn't already happen everyday to privately insured patients, so what's your point? Because theoretically some patients will be denied care, millions of people who otherwise won't be able to see a doctor should be allowed to suffer?

Personally I could care less what it costs to provide health care to all Americans. Saying that people should be allowed to live ****ty lives or die without treatment because they're poor sickens me.
Kevin M is offline  
Old 01-29-2008, 07:42 AM
  #3  
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
FW Motorsports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
It's "couldn't care less"...as in you have expended all care for something.

The difference is that with socialist medicine, it's the rule, rather the exception.

So what's your limit?

$500/yr? = $150B/yr
$5000/yr? = $1.5T/yr
$50k/yr? = 11tyB/yr.

Oh, wait, you said Americans.....
Forgot to factor in the illegals.

As with all schemes Socialist, it starts slowly, incrementally.
First it's the very old.
Then it's the very sick.
Smokers & alcoholics are added to the list.
The very over weight come next.
Possibly homosexuals.
FW Motorsports is offline  
Old 01-29-2008, 08:37 AM
  #4  
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Kevin M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
You're not worth pursuing this point with, because you can't grasp the difference between "universal health care" and "socialist medicine."
Kevin M is offline  
Old 01-29-2008, 12:19 PM
  #5  
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
FW Motorsports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
So get off your ****ing high horse and explain the difference.

Both schemes requires the "Haves"...us working stiffs...to give up their income to provide for the "Have Nots".

How much of your paycheck are willing to donate?
FW Motorsports is offline  
Old 01-29-2008, 01:17 PM
  #6  
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Kevin M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
So get off your ****ing high horse and explain the difference.

Both schemes requires the "Haves"...us working stiffs...to give up their income to provide for the "Have Nots".

How much of your paycheck are willing to donate?
Socialist medicine would be the nationalization of the health care industry. Universal health care would be sacking up and finding a way to buy health insurance, either under a new program or system, or simply buying coverage for those who cannot afford it for themselves. As a taxpayer, I don't really care how much it costs, because I know the actual fiscal impact is pretty minimal.

How many Americans can afford health care here? I'm not talking about insurance; I'm talking about the actual costs of treating injuries, diseases, surgeries, etc. I'm gonna be real liberal with this estimate and call it 20%. That means the other 80% of us have to band together and pitch into a fund called "health insurance" so that when individuals among us get sick, we only have to pay a small portion of the bill. Do you, or do you not, have private carrier health insurance for your family Paul?

Now, why is it so abhorrent to conservatives that we take that pool of contributors and expand it to include the last 15% of people who not only can't even begin to think of paying for actual care costs, but can't afford the insurance coverage you and I have? They don't pay for it? I think that's a matter of perspective. After all, who exactly pays for health care right now?

Bottom line for me is, do we really expect every last able bodied person in the country to be able to pay for their medical care directly? Obviously not. And if we did, then in order for them all to have coverage either their direct wages or the overhead for their employers would increase significantly, and you'd be spending mroe for the things you buy now anyway.
Kevin M is offline  
Old 01-29-2008, 01:50 PM
  #7  
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
jvick125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Monterey
Posts: 10,375
Car Info: Sline
Originally Posted by Kevin M
Personally I could care less what it costs to provide health care to all Americans.
To quote the President:
I welcome [your] enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."
jvick125 is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 09:04 AM
  #8  
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
FW Motorsports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Massachusetts Population, 2006 estimate = 6,437,193
Those w/o health insurance(summer 2006) = 200,000

Percentage Uninsured = 3%

MA Health Plan over budget = $400,000,000

That works out to a deficit of $2000 per enrollee.


How many enrollees are you willing to pay for?
FW Motorsports is offline  
Old 02-02-2008, 10:52 PM
  #9  
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
 
RussB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: pompous douchebag
Posts: 9,351
Car Info: $200,000 sports car
Originally Posted by Kevin M
You're not worth pursuing this point with, because you can't grasp the difference between "universal health care" and "socialist medicine."
you were in the military right? how was the medical service? now imagine that for everyone in the country, longer waits, and even worse care.

as for not knowing the difference between "universal health care" and "socialist medicine", i think you are the one confused... any plan where everyone receives care regardless of how much they pay in is a socialist plan and we already have that, it's called medicare. it will start with issues that pull at heartstrings, like medical care, and it will end with us waiving a fully red flag.

Last edited by RussB; 02-02-2008 at 10:55 PM.
RussB is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 03:28 PM
  #10  
Troll
iTrader: (6)
 
GT35 STI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In SoggyNoodles Low Rise Pants
Posts: 15,877
Car Info: 2008 Legacy Spec-B
socialized health care ftmfw!
GT35 STI is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 05:06 PM
  #11  
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Kevin M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally Posted by GT35 STI
socialized health care ftmfw!
Thanks, you've done amazing things here.
Kevin M is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 06:23 PM
  #12  
Troll
iTrader: (6)
 
GT35 STI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In SoggyNoodles Low Rise Pants
Posts: 15,877
Car Info: 2008 Legacy Spec-B
Originally Posted by Kevin M
Thanks, you've done amazing things here.
Bull '08!
GT35 STI is offline  
Old 02-05-2008, 08:21 AM
  #13  
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
FW Motorsports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
I don't understand how y'all that say the gov't is ****ed up but still want the gov't to run our healthcare system.

Looks like Hitlery favors Socialist Medicine

Will Sen. Hillary Clinton garnish the wages of people who can afford health insurance but refuse to buy into her universal health care plan?

...Clinton on Sunday described universal health care as "a core Democratic value and a moral principle, and I'm absolutely going to do everything I can to achieve that."
.

...Stephanopoulos tried again: "And I still haven't heard, if people can afford it and they don't buy the insurance, will their wages be garnished under your plan? Will they have to pay fines?"

Pressed a third time on the wage-garnishing question, Clinton said, "we will have an enforcement mechanism -- whether it's that (wage garnishing) or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments."
FW Motorsports is offline  
Old 02-05-2008, 09:07 AM
  #14  
Registered User
iTrader: (12)
 
Kevin M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 18,369
Car Info: 1993/2000/2001 GF4 mostly red
Originally Posted by Paul@dbtuned
I don't understand how y'all that say the gov't is ****ed up but still want the gov't to run our healthcare system.
Some of us grasp the difference between 'universal' health care, and socialist medicine. Hillary's solution is not far from the latter, which is why I prefer Obama's plan. His ultimate goal differs slightly from hers- affordable health care for everyone who WANTS it. He has no requirements for enrollment for adults, though he would require coverage for children. His program is designed to reduce costs through various reform measures, and provide subsidies for those who still can't afford it and maintain a reasonable standard of living (i.e., pay rent, groceries etc.). The government doesn't "run" health care under his proposal, it just changes the cost structure and provides help to those who can't get insurance without it. That's it. You and I would see absolutely no change in our care, other than a reduction in our premiums. Clinton's plan is more nebulous, and yes, it appears to lean far more heavily on government oversight and management. Not usually the ideal solution but occasionally it's necessary. Hopefully it doesn't happen in this case.

Now, you guys have to realize- when a Democrat gets into the White House, we will end up with some form of universal care. It's a fact; it's at the top of the Democratic agenda and a very large portion of America supports the idea. It's time to start looking at the best way to get it done, because it's going to happen whether you guys are ready for it or not.
Kevin M is offline  
Old 02-05-2008, 11:52 AM
  #15  
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
 
T-Will's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Front pleated TWill pants...
Posts: 10,232
Car Info: 2004 PSM WRX
Don't we already have universal health care? I think it's call Medicare/Medicaid, or get a ****ing job and purchase it through your employer.

I'm guessing that most people really wanting health care can get it, but it might mean they need to quit wasting their money on luxuries and put their money to use.

The last thing we need is even BIGGER government and higher taxes.
T-Will is offline  


Quick Reply: Still Want Socialist Healthcare?



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Top

© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands



When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.