Aint the net wonderful! A robust discussion on healthcare morphs into what Angelina Jolie did or didn’t do…!! Gotta love it.
Ok. The fundamental question is - should the community provide/pay for universal healthcare for all citizens? Every OECD nation says YES - except for the United States.
So…maybe they are all wrong??
Of course its a little more complicated in reality. State do provide free healthcare for some people. Hawaii provides it widely and doesn’t need this debate.
Universal healthcare is not a remedy for every disease and condition. No nation can afford that. New hearts for everyone? Nope. But modern almost miraculous care (compared with only 50 years ago) is standard for a vast range of conditions.
Ultimately I agree with you. If there is one problem with universal healthcare it is the unrealistic expectations of patients and families. Miracles are no longer enough - they want super-miracles.
The public expectations of medical science are always a step ahead of reality.
However I don’t know that the average person can adopt the philosophical position that their child must die because they don’t have enough money. Particularly if their neighbour’s child lives because they have more money. That’s a recipe for bitterness.
I did not said that you lied, you are confusing me with some one else, but keep piling evidence that you can not pay attention.
It is still clear that you were an ignorant on what people that you disparage are capable of doing, in regards to helping poor people with health care issues.
Once again more examples of not paying attention, the public option is not an option in the plan being discussed. The example of single payer was given only to deal with the idea that doctors are against any government intervention.
So yeah, the facts are there, but as you demonstrated, the interpretation you give of them is not good.
You are absolutely incorrect. First, Filburn was the farmer. Second, the decisions says nothing that suggests that the government can force you to grow wheat against your will. That is the opposite of Wickard. Once Filburn was engaged in commerce the federal government can then regulate it. If Filburn refuses to grow wheat then he is not involved in commerce.
It’s all about accepting reality. The rich generally have a better standard of living. Why bitch at the Government when you can just decide to work harder and make more money? What ever happened to self-sufficiency?
You did accuse me of defaming someone, which was part of my gripe. Why are you refusing to admit you were wrong? Do you even know the definition of defamation? Or maybe you’re just intentionally dodging this? At this point it’s safe to assume you either believe that saying you didn’t see someone doing something amounts to defamation or you’re trying to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
If I am ignorant of what people I am disparaging are capable of then you must conclude that no kids fall through the cracks and no kids die for lack of funding for their medical treatment.
Are you willing to argue this? You’ve been dodging this over and over again. At this point it’s safe to assume that you don’t want to address the fact that sick people fall through the cracks no matter what system you put in place.
And in America, what other example of single payer health care is there besides the public option? Aside from the ill-fated Medicare for All bill, that’s the implementation of single payer that was presented to us in recent times.
And you’re not paying attention to the fact that doctors are acting out their opposition by simply abandoning certain aspects of medical practice, like the highly-important primary care practice.
Doctors want to help people but they also want to get paid.
Self-sufficiency went out the window for rich and poor a very long time ago, my friend. True self-sufficiency would lead to no roads, schools, military and so forth.
Even should you accept that those are necessary we still find that tax supports, abatements, tax incentive financing (how the Wal-Mart in my small, rural town in Ohio managed to pay for the road construction required for their building), and other issues similar.
In short, both the poor people and the rich people and the corporate people take every handout they can whether they or their neighbors realize it or not. But part of that is what makes a society. You can argue around the edges but ‘self-sufficiency’ is a myth.
Oh, and forgive me, but you throw the word ‘liberal’ around fairly casually. I am largely unaware of most of the ‘celebrities’ in the earlier list (my knowledge of pop culture large stopped about 1987 or so). But how do you know them well enough to label them all ‘liberal’? I thought I saw at least one professional athlete on their and as most reporters will tell you pro athletes tend towards the very right wing in their political views.
Nah, you are just now tap dancing on the fact that you were wrong about many leftists in Hollywood.
All other items you are trying to get me to admit are just distractions.
As for the “Doctors want to help people but they also want to get paid.” You are trying to make all ignore that private insurance is less reliable on paying doctors than Medicare.
No I wasn’t - because I did not say what you claim I said.
I said I don’t see them getting to ALL the kids in America. That is a fact.
You accused me of defaming Angelina Jolie.
What I said does not meet the legal definition of defamation.
You cannot admit you were wrong.
How is this a distraction? I am addressing what you said.
You’re not going to get let off the hook for accusing me of defaming Angelina Jolie… you can feel free to drop this discussion but you’ve falsely accused me and this will not be left to stand.
So it was that the rich conservatives could not do it also, someone should had made that point before and that is why I consider the attempt on getting this admission a silly one.
Now who mentioned that before? Any guesses?
Fell free to continue tap dancing around the fact that you where wrong about some of the people you do not like.
Okay, so you believe that liberals ensure that all kids get necessary medical care. Got it.
And you believe I defamed Angelina Jolie. Got it.
At this point there’s nothing more I can do to help you, son.
Who else here besides you believes that rich liberal celebrities have managed to take care of all the sick kids, or that I have legally defamed Angelina Jolie? Anyone? Or do you stand all alone here?
Indeed, I can not find good examples of rich people going Galt.
And I agree also with the point that not all celebrities are liberal also. And I can see on edit that **HRoark43 **can not stand that no one is taking his side regarding what I should admit, oh well.
That’s because the Government decided it needed to take care of the down and out.
The rich can get along just fine with private roads and private security. In many places they do just that. At the very least they can get along with toll roads. I sent my son and daughter to private school. I’m not even posting from inside the U.S.! I made my money and GTFO.
I didn’t label all celebrities as liberals. Can someone show the post where I did?
Actually, in post #228, in a response to a list of charity celebrities you refer to
By that you were referring to the aforementioned list by emacknight of celebrities who had contributed to one cause or the other. I merely called you on calling out that list as ‘liberal’ when I, at least, have no idea about their politics.
On the idea that self-sufficiency went out the window when government decided it needed to take care of the down and out I believe you are woefully ignorant of history. In most cases of such events occurring they initially occurred through private organizations that later had the problem outgrow their ability. Then a vox populi brought government out to support such things.
There is a tacit assumption, in a system such as exists in the USA, that any government program that lasts more than 25 years or so is supported by the voters (that cohort being different that the ‘people’ cohort) due to the voters ability to vote out those who officials who do unpopular things. In the 20th century it is possible to point to both Vietnam and Prohibition as things that the voters essentially rejected and caused change regarding.
So remember this, any part of ‘the government’ that is taking care of the down and out, is doing so with the tacit approval of a majority of the electorate. It’s not that ‘government’ wanted to do something…it’s that the ‘people’ wanted to do something.
Fine. I will do a point by point analysis of your accusation at the end of this post.
Not that you’ll admit you’re wrong. You already showed that when you refused to admit you were wrong in accusing me of defamation.
Uhm, nowhere in there do I say that ALL celebrities as liberals. There’s no way you could credibly interpret what I said as saying that all celebrities are liberals, or even most. I made absolutely ZERO inference as to how many celebrities are liberals.
And here is the point by point analysis of your accusation and notes explaining why the evidence you presented does not support your claim:
Seriously, if liberals disagree with that then why don’t they contribute more donations to such things?
This doesn’t even mention how many celebrities are liberals. It doesn’t even refer to celebrities at all.
I don’t see Angelina Jolie (or name your other supposedly liberal icon) rushing out to help every time there’s a kid who needs chemotherapy.
This part refers to one celebrity in that it identifies Angelina Jolie as a liberal.
It also infers that there are other rich celebrity liberals out there. But this statement doesn’t even imply any estimate of how many liberals there are in the celebrity world. It just refers to “other supposedly liberal icons”.
How you got from this that I said all celebrities are liberal, who in the world knows…
I visit dailykos and moveon.org and I rarely if ever see them headlining a charity drive for these kids.
Where in this did I say that all celebrities are liberals?
Is that all or even most celebrities? I doubt that. Even so, calling that list a list of liberals might have been hasty - it’s a known fact that Conservatives are more charitable than liberals anyway. No trolling - this has been demonstrated many times across many studies.
Point made.
Side point: And now the problem is outgrowing the Government. The more money you throw at poverty the more it grows.
Not trying to flamebait here but you know what happens when you feed birds crumbs in Hawaii and food to monkeys in Japan, right? I’ve seen the latter up front; they keep coming back to you and become dependent upon you. We are now a nation of people dependent upon the dole.
Perhaps this is why people who come from nations without safety nets become so prosperous here. They rely on themselves and their family/community, while America is growing generations of people who would fall apart if the Government weren’t there to prop them up.
Oh well, I can see that he can be capable of denying even the existence of context. And in any case, my point was regarding how wrong it was to say that an specific celebrity was lacking in charity efforts.
I can see that you are incapable of admitting you were wrong when you accused me of defaming Angelina Jolie. And that I didn’t accuse all celebrities of being liberals.
