Disagree
Goat here. Err…or sheep. What?
I disagree with Rand Rover, but possibly it’s a learned reflex. 
I have some thoughts of my own about the cost of health care. I remember about 20 years ago hearing a couple of news stories about the supply of medical students who would become doctors and other healthcare professionals. It seems that medical schools were restricting the number of students, and, as I recall it, expressly stated that the reason was their concern that a “flood” of new doctors and nurses would result in an oversupply, lowering the amount doctors could charge, and interfering with the schools’ ability to charge high tuition. The AMA may or may not have been party to this decision to restrict student numbers. But it was openly discussed for some time in the media that the medical establishment (essentially a monopoly as it controls who may practice) was intentionally and openly artificially bolstering its prices at the expense of everyone else.
At the time I was young and, although I personally considered this a dangerously stupid idea (so what if doctors move down from “rich” to “well off” if it means saving tens of thousands of lives and billions in cash, while giving us more practicing docs to choose from?) I couldn’t find anyone who was interested in talking about it.
And so an unfree-market used government regulation (you can’t legally be a doctor without med school approval) to keep monopoly status to the detriment of most of the people in the country. Somehow people like Rand Rover think that’s free-market capitalism at its best.
Eh, see my paragraph above. A lot of the money wealthy corporations have is theft, too. You don’t think Bernie Madoff, Goldman Sachs, the auto executives, and all those golden parachute guys actually earned their hundreds of billions through hard work and innovation, do you? The “innovation” was pretty much limited to financial trickery their own memos warned would crumble, the hard work was pretty much limited to making some phone calls and schmoozing with cronies who controlled each others’ pay by serving on the “oversight” boards of each others’ companies.
A lot of theft goes on, only some of it by government tax agents or individual gangsters.
.
Obviously disagree.
I think the quote in the OP supposes a false premise. Do I want my taxpayer dollars going to support someone who chose to spend their paycheck on hookers and blow? No. But my doctor’s office (radiation oncologist) covers indigent patients who need treatment, and anyone can get medical care by going into hospital ERs. So, I suppose I’m paying that way.
Am I going to help someone out who needs it? If I can, yes. I guess what I have a problem with is the government telling me I MUST help them, whether I like it or not. The US has a stellar reputation for stepping up when needs must. Whether it’s the tsunami in Asia or Katrina in New Orleans, private citizens and corporations got moving and helping a hell of a lot faster than government did.
Strongly disagree.
Jesus, what a little bitch you are–she didn’t insult you and did not even direct her comment towards you, and yet you demand an apology within the hour and cast aspersions when you don’t get something you’re not entitled to in the first place.[/spoiler][/size]
Totally disagree. And while we’re at it, I also disagree that it is fine for children to go hungry in order to satisfy people who think taxation is theft.
This I agree with… I’m of the feeling that medicine in general would cost much less if preventative medication was more widespread.
I have no sympathy for RR or others like him. He can live without a few grand in toys so others can survive. I’m on track to get my CPA, which according to all my professors means I will be a millionaire in 5 years :rolleyes: But whatever the case, I’d rather live without a little so other people can live. The US is not a meritocracy, it really has never been one. I hate that peoples health depends so much on money, it’s ridiculous.
I think there is a point that needs to be stressed - when I said that implemented publicly funded health care was going to hurt, I meant you.
You will have to pay more, and make do with less. It will not (IMO) be possible to fund a large new health care program by taxing somebody else.
If you honestly think that health care is a right, then I would hope you would be willing to pay the price, not shift it off to someone else.
It’s easy to be generous when you don’t pay the bill. But I don’t think you are entitled to praise when you do it.
Regards,
Shodan
I strongly disagree, but I am biased, as I’d be on the receiving end.
I really need a way to get health care but I can’t afford it. Nor can I work full time and still be able to get my little girl to her various therapies every week or work with her daily like I do now.
It’s her or me, and she wins hands down.
Oh well for me right? TFB I shouldn’t have gotten knocked up with a defective kid in the first place.
What some people don’t realize is we don’t DIE because we don’t get health care. We languish in poor health until we have to have emergency medical attention, then the objecting taxpayer pays even more. And then we languish longer on disability, where we will probably qualify for all sorts of programs we don’t get as healthy poor people.
FTR, I have “free” coverage through my employer with BCBSFL, which I’m quite happy with, inasmuch as I don’t have to pay for it (other than token copays).
However, I still do not approve of the system in general, and I believe provision of healthcare is one of the duties of government.
Depends. I’m agreeable to helping people who require more tax money than they produce. However, since this is done at gunpoint I would like to extend the same system of redistribution of wealth to include luxury items purchased in lue of paying those costs. People on public assistance should not be allowed cable TV when society is paying their share of health insurance. That means we are essentially paying for the cable TV.
I strongly disagree. I already pay more in taxes than the median income of the United States, though for where I live it is no great shakes. My wife, unable to work due to her disability, and I are reasonably comfortable but are not secure for the long term. The cost of her own medical care is an enormous strain on our budget, despite the fact that I work for a Fortune 50 corporation and supposedly have high quality private insurance coverage. At least Empire Blue thinks I do. I disagree, but I digress.
My wife and I would gladly shoulder an additional burden to ensure that everyone has access to at least some modicum of the care that we do.
So you disagree with much of the Constitution.
I’ll admit that I currently make so little money I don’t pay taxes (I’m in grad school), so maybe people don’t think I should be allowed to decide. But I’m looking into the future when I will most likely have a better job and make more money and pay taxes. And I would rather pay a larger amount of money and have the general public uplifted. Yes, UHC means I will get to take less money home. I think it’s worth it.
I used to volunteer in a very poor area of town. It was there I realized how much background affects peoples abilities to succeed as adults. Yes, there are those who pull themselves up from poverty and make good money. But in general, it sure seems like if you’re born poor you stay poor and if you’re born rich you stay that way. I was lucky, I was born into an upper middle class family and given plenty of opportunities. But realistically, my ability to be born there was nothing more than luck. And I don’t think I should climb on a high horse and say that I’m better and more deserving of being healthy than others are because of the class I was born in.
Goat chorus: WTF?
Disagree
Disagree.
She’s apparently from a well off family and expect to therefore make a good living in the future; that means she’ll have much better access to medical care than normal people.
Just speculating and (I thought) answering Sailboat
Sheep I think.
Absolutely disagree.
Uh, tell that to 48 million uninsured Americans. Who and where is all this stepping up?
And in many cases, had there been medical care at an earlier point, the languishing and disability would be avoided altogether.