And I'll be sure to kick you hard enough in the balls that you won't be using them to kiddy fiddle anymore.

I find it amusing that the same party that wants universal health care (to save people) also supports abortion (killing people).

Yeah, little stupid bean people, not big regular looking people who talk and pay taxes.

I CAN DO IT TOO!

I find it amusing that the same party that protects zygotes like a living person, but doesn't consider a real living person worth healing.

acting to kill bad

not acting to save

...

not as bad

(sorry, I just watched John Freeman )

Uh, let's put it another way, our basic argument also applies to public education. To you, rich people paying more individually into public education is unfair. Why should poor people pay less and get their kids the same kind of education? It sounds like you think the rich need to stay rich and live long and the poor stay poor and die early! How dare we give people an equal footing, eh?

A child is born with spina bifida. There's no-one at fault for the situation. Under a universal healthcare system the entirety of society bares the financial brunt of his medical care, to each individual this amounts to sweet FA. This allows him to live his life on as equal a footing as everyone else as possible without being further crippled by the costs of his care. The same reason you expect all children have a right to an education regardless of their parent's wealth, people have a right to health regardless of how rich or poor they are.

That works.

Because public education doesn't.

Well it works well enough here. I don't think it's the fact that it's being publically funded that's a problem. The alternatives for those who can't afford private school (eg home-schooling) aren't any better).

Perhaps I've been playing devil's advocate here a little too much in this debate.

I can see all this being used as an argument to set up some kind of system to help people get access to health care which they need (perhaps like the welfare system, a temporary help to people who are at that moment in need). But I don't see how any of it justifies a national health care system. If your entire argument is based around the need to provide health care for the poor, then why a national health care system at all? We only need to provide for the poor right?

Let me put my position this way. I have no qualms about helping people in need. Some people through no fault of their own come into situations where they are in trouble economically, which can be because of health care. My view of the point of a welfare system (which in our country might not work this way, but this is how I think it should be) is to help these people get back on their feet and help them get back out there and begin working again towards being independent again. I can certainly see this applying to health care as well. Obviously during times when people are struggling, they may need medical care. Ok, we can help them there too. But again, its with the purpose of helping them become independent and being able to provide for things themselves, not so they can mooch off a system for however long they can get away with it.

Or maybe we should just change my title to Conservative Hatemonger and call it good.

You have no problem helping people in need, unless they're po.

We get it.

You obviously don't, but thats hardly surprising, since you can't seem to form a coherent argument for anything.

It's not just for the poor. It also acts as a safety net. You don't have to be poor to get into a terrible car accident and have your money drained down the tube with hospital bills. A good majority of families who file for bankruptcy are due to medical related reasons. According to the article, 3/4 of those people had insurance before their medical issue.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

You aren't making any new arguments.

You aren't making any at all. You merely come into the thread every now and again to make poorly written insults, so I'm not terribly worried if you think I'm not making any new arguments.

Did ya see Echoman's post? Do ya not get the concept yet?

Yes, I did, forgive me if I don't respond within a couple minutes to every single post made.

Concerning the study posted for those who have insurance, I see that as a combination of two problems. One, we American's live well beyond our means. Sure they had insurance, but according to that study, the average uncovered cost was around $13,000. Any financial planner will tell you that you should have money saved up in case some problem of this type happens. But guess what, people don't, and when problems like this arise, their only option is bankruptcy.

Then of course there is the overly high cost of medical care, due in no small part to malpractice suits that are awarded ridiculously high sums of money. Reigning in this practice would benefit everyone, including lower income earners, by reducing rates of insurance and cost of care.

Now, don't get angry Kirby if I don't respond to the posts here for a little while. I've got to go to school and all that.

I don't think your employer would appreciate it much if you were to permanently damage my package.

Because no one lives hand to mouth, and everyone has all this extra money to save.

Especially the people with pre-existing conditions.

Yeah rob that's why everyone near the poverty line has cable TV and an xbox.

Entertainment and happiness are also needs that need to be fulfilled.

Or have you forgotten that?

I try to forget that entertainment companies force "needs" on you.

That's a pretty big claim, and pretty presumptuous.

HOW WOULD YOU KNOW MCRICHY!

running for President and his congressional seat?
silly ron paul

That got old pages ago. It's lame as a joke, and a miserably bad straw man as an argument. You seem to think it's clever in both roles. Trust me, it is not.



Wow, I feel so sorry for every human that ever lived until thirty years ago, and for most of the plant today.

Also,
From http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

I mean, I don't deny that there are poor people in America today, but for the most part they have it much better than much of the world's population as far as both their living conditions and opportunities for betterment go. While in much of the world poverty means wondering where your next meal will come from, in the US, poverty is often linked to obesity.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469027

Except it's basically what you both have been saying, captain silver spoon.

I can see how not wanting to take the effort to understand or formulate actual arrangements against positions you disagree with would make you think that. If you're too lazy to do that, at least let competent people do your arguing for you. Otherwise, you'll just embarrass the people who happen to agree with you.

You haven't even made an argument.

Oh wait, I'm sorry maybe you did.

Your argument; I don't feel like paying for it.


Thats lame.

That's lame.

Yes, very perceptive. Maybe the reason I'm attacking you instead of your position is that the way you present your position, ie. drive by personal attacks, and straw man fallacies, sucks.

Yes, very perceptive. Maybe the reason I'm attacking you instead of your position is that the way you present your position, ie. like someone who has never had to worry about getting the proper care emergency or otherwise. Or maybe it's because the only two arguments you jackasses of have made are LOL I don't feel like paying for it and LOL the government can't do anything right.

Lame arguments.

Make one that doesn't suck.

IT'S OVER

http://wonkette.com/354581/ron-paul-basically-gives-up

Again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. (If you make claims like that you have to back them up with logic.)

Oh, you apparently you didn't notice, but until just recently I haven't posted in this thread for several pages.



Welcome to last year?

The rEVOLution is REVOlution.

He had a good run, and I'm glad he ran.

This thread is gay

Dude, you just used a straw man phallacy.

Why don't you back up your argument with logic? OH HEY YOU CAN'T, because there isn't ANY REASON why there shouldn't be Universal health care in this country.

Yeah there is. Because there are more effective and cheaper ways to accomplish the same thing. We've been over this.

For that matter, hospitals are required to treat you if you turn up in their emergency room, no matter how many times you've declared bankruptcy or how much money you owe. That's part of why they are so expensive, because so many people go and never pay them. Also, it's quite illegal to charge interest on medical bills. Most doctors charge uninsured patients significantly less (Like, a third as much), so that their patients can actually afford them. They charge insured patients more because they know that, after they send their bill to the insurance company, the insurance is going to throw half of it away and never pay the doctor, and there is nothing the doctor can do about it. Meanwhile, idiots abuse the legal system, getting huge settlements over stupid disputes, driving up malpractice insurance prices and doctor's prices, while burying legitimate malpractice cases under piles of bureaucratic bull****.

Shall we go over it again, or are you just going to insult me?

Too bad they won't see you for most things that are less than life threatening, then impose more debt that can't possibly hope to be paid back.

Thats some awesome stuff right there.


Universal health care doesn't just mean "coverage" for the poor, IT MEANS HEALTH CARE.

Wow, it took you a whole post to forget about the bold, underlined text. Very good.

Really, I don't mind having an actual discussion about it with someone who isn't constantly trying to compensate for some kind of screwed up insecurity complex. It's a very interesting topic, and there are good points to be made on both sides. It's a very difficult issue, and its implementation no matter what is done about it, will also be difficult. Sadly, you missed the part where I never discussed universal health care at all in this thread .

So, I guess technically that isn't a straw man, because a straw man only involves misconstruing or oversimplifying someone's argument. Not pulling it out of thin air.



Actually, emergency rooms are required to treat you. If you have something small, you'll wait a while, but they have to treat you. They charge a lot because many people can't pay.