Do you support universal healthcare?

The T wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: [There was this wonderful segment on Food, Inc. that tried to make me feel sorry for some Hispanic family who claimed they were too poor to eat anything besides fast food. But that's ridiculous, I don't care what the margins on McDonald's are like, making something yourself is always cheaper, they were just being irresponsible. Have you ever been to a supermarket? Making yourself a HEALTHY meal is not always less expensive than buying crap... If not, check statistics. The poorest people are also the most obese.  Here in the US, unlike in countries like mine, buying a Mc combo is less expensive than buying produce....

Nonsense.

Let's say it's $4 per person for a family of 5 to eat at McDonald's.  That's $20 for one meal.

I guarantee you I could take $40 and buy this family enough groceries to last them a week if they ate no more than 3 meals a day.  I'm talking rice, beans, cabbage, Cream of Wheat, chicken leg quarters, pasta, spaghetti sauce, potatoes, etc.

This is cheaper and better for you than fast food and will feed your family much, much longer.

The T wrote: I'm pretty sure he's paid a lot of taxes, him being so rich. It's not even that unfair for him not to have access to public healthcare.  Anyway, who would decide? The death panels...

I don't follow your logic here. He's paid the most into the health care "pool" so he should get the least treatment from it?

I'm pretty sure he's paid a lot of taxes, him being so rich. It's not even that unfair for him not to have access to public healthcare. 

Lozlan wrote: Also, I reject the idea that poor people drink and watch TV because they are stupid.  Of late, I've learned what it means to be moderately poor; you seek out panacea, and entertainment is the opiate of the masses.  Rather than condemning them for their expenditures, I'd like to examine the society that allows such class stratification to exist.  Poor people are encouraged to adopt the airs of the upper class, and the upper class benefits from their crushing debt.

Are we talking emergency services only, or all healthcare?
If it's all healthcare, is there a limit on the number of doctor visits? Could I go fourteen times a week on someone else's dime?

I suspect if he is a rich man he will have paid more taxes.  Mind you that doesn;t allways follow as the rich tend to pay people to help them avoid taxes.  So yep if hes rich and he gets ill let him die (or her)  

thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: Yes, yes, dear lord yes.  I come from fairly wealthy and excessively conservative stock, and was driven to progressivism by my parents driving by poor people's houses and mocking them for having satellite television.  "If they wanted to go to the doctor, they shouldn't spend all their money on booze and TV, har har."    Well, don't you think it would be prudent to put your healthcare costs before 1000 channels of mostly garbage? If you're going to spend all your money on luxuries, is it reasonable to expect other people to pay for your necessities? "I can't afford food this week, because I bought a playstation 3 instead, so I expect you to pay my grocery bill, thanks." I don't see how that seems fair to anyone. I don't think that any personal choices we make in our lives should force us to be devoid of healthcare.  If a man smokes eighty packs a day, and develops lung cancer, I think he deserves to be treated at a hospital like every other human being.  To do otherwise would be to attach moralities to what I believe is a basic human right. Also, I reject the idea that poor people drink and watch TV because they are stupid.  Of late, I've learned what it means to be moderately poor; you seek out panacea, and entertainment is the opiate of the masses.  Rather than condemning them for their expenditures, I'd like to examine the society that allows such class stratification to exist.  Poor people are encouraged to adopt the airs of the upper class, and the upper class benefits from their crushing debt. Okay, so what if a rich person, a millionaire say, spent all his money on yachts and private jets. Then he needs an operation. He could have easily afforded this if he hadn't squandered his wealth, but now he can't. You think the rest of society should pick up his bill because "the personal choices we make in our lives shouldn't force us to be devoid of healthcare?" This seems like a recipe for disaster. If everyone realizes they can get free healthcare if they can't afford it, there won't be much incentive to save, since someone else will pick up the tab.

Believe it or not, many countries around the world provide universal health care for their citizens.  Admittedly, there will always be kinks in systems as complicated as national health care, but last I heard Sweden was a thriving, industrious country, with the world's 4th most competitive economy.  Although I will confess that I have scant information of the number of yachts the country supports.

thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: Yes, yes, dear lord yes.  I come from fairly wealthy and excessively conservative stock, and was driven to progressivism by my parents driving by poor people's houses and mocking them for having satellite television.  "If they wanted to go to the doctor, they shouldn't spend all their money on booze and TV, har har."    Well, don't you think it would be prudent to put your healthcare costs before 1000 channels of mostly garbage? If you're going to spend all your money on luxuries, is it reasonable to expect other people to pay for your necessities? "I can't afford food this week, because I bought a playstation 3 instead, so I expect you to pay my grocery bill, thanks." I don't see how that seems fair to anyone. I don't think that any personal choices we make in our lives should force us to be devoid of healthcare.  If a man smokes eighty packs a day, and develops lung cancer, I think he deserves to be treated at a hospital like every other human being.  To do otherwise would be to attach moralities to what I believe is a basic human right. Also, I reject the idea that poor people drink and watch TV because they are stupid.  Of late, I've learned what it means to be moderately poor; you seek out panacea, and entertainment is the opiate of the masses.  Rather than condemning them for their expenditures, I'd like to examine the society that allows such class stratification to exist.  Poor people are encouraged to adopt the airs of the upper class, and the upper class benefits from their crushing debt. Okay, so what if a rich person, a millionaire say, spent all his money on yachts and private jets. Then he needs an operation. He could have easily afforded this if he hadn't squandered his wealth, but now he can't. You think the rest of society should pick up his bill because "the personal choices we make in our lives shouldn't force us to be devoid of healthcare?" This seems like a recipe for disaster. If everyone realizes they can get free healthcare if they can't afford it, there won't be much incentive to save, since someone else will pick up the tab.

Or, better yet, why not let everyone pay for their own health care.  The government will supply welathy people with yachts and private jets, and will supply Pabst Blue Ribbon and Direct TV for poor people.

thellama73 wrote: Lozlan wrote: Yes, yes, dear lord yes.  I come from fairly wealthy and excessively conservative stock, and was driven to progressivism by my parents driving by poor people's houses and mocking them for having satellite television.  "If they wanted to go to the doctor, they shouldn't spend all their money on booze and TV, har har."    Well, don't you think it would be prudent to put your healthcare costs before 1000 channels of mostly garbage? If you're going to spend all your money on luxuries, is it reasonable to expect other people to pay for your necessities? "I can't afford food this week, because I bought a playstation 3 instead, so I expect you to pay my grocery bill, thanks." I don't see how that seems fair to anyone.

I don't think that any personal choices we make in our lives should force us to be devoid of healthcare.  If a man smokes eighty packs a day, and develops lung cancer, I think he deserves to be treated at a hospital like every other human being.  To do otherwise would be to attach moralities to what I believe is a basic human right.

Also, I reject the idea that poor people drink and watch TV because they are stupid.  Of late, I've learned what it means to be moderately poor; you seek out panacea, and entertainment is the opiate of the masses.  Rather than condemning them for their expenditures, I'd like to examine the society that allows such class stratification to exist.  Poor people are encouraged to adopt the airs of the upper class, and the upper class benefits from their crushing debt.

Yes, yes, dear lord yes.  I come from fairly wealthy and excessively conservative stock, and was driven to progressivism by my parents driving by poor people's houses and mocking them for having satellite television.  "If they wanted to go to the doctor, they shouldn't spend all their money on booze and TV, har har."