That isn’t widely acknowledged. I’ve never seen any proof of it, at least. How about you show me some?
Hmmm.
I appear to have derailed the thread by pointing out the contradiction in a torture supporter claiming to respect human life. Sorry, folks.
Apples and oranges.
Or, to use another word…nonsense.
Be fair, at least - **SA **has claimed that mistreating a few people in order to save many more is a “pretty good trade-off”. Therefore, he should have no issue at all with “lefties around here who think it’s perfectly reasonable to deny operations, implants, transplants and other potentially expensive health care options from the elderly, the congenitally infirm, etc. because it isn’t cost-effective in terms of their future life expectancy and/or ability to contribute to society.” That’s a “pretty good trade-off” too, in his way of reasoning.
This is what private health insurance is in the business of doing.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Yeah. Sure. The right values human life. That’s a good one.
So the guy who has health insurance under the current system, and gets cancer that makes him so sick that he can’t work and loses his job, and consequently loses his health insurance, and racks up debts so he goes bankrupt, and loses his house to foreclosure – that guy who is totally screwed by the current system – so this is a lucky fellow who lives under the health care system that the right thinks is better and values human life more than UHC?
Remember, this poor guy was a working man, earning money, paying his bills and health insurance. Living the tighty-righty American dream. Until God smote his ass with cancer that totally wiped it all out.
Or how about the woman whose job doesn’t offer insurance and who can’t afford to buy it on her own because of a pre-existing condition. Remember, this woman is also pulling her own weight. Working a job, supporting herself to the best of her ability. So what happens when she gets sick. Sorry, too bad, lady – the oh-so-compassionate righty says. We value human life as long as that human can pull up his or her own bootstraps. Otherwise, forget it.
These people are already being denied operations, implants, transplants and other potentially expensive health care options because they can’t afford it. How is your wealth-based rationing system any better, or more humane than what you cite??
Nah. Give me the nanny state. Like when my little niece had to be hospitalized several times, for several weeks, for breathing problems as a baby. This was in Canada. Even with insurance, this would have amounted to staggering medical bills. My brother and sister-in-law didn’t get a single bill. They didn’t have to choose whether to pay their mortgage. No – I’m not saying it was free. But it was paid for gradually over years and years of payments to the UHC system. Predictable, manageable payments that didn’t send them into financial shock. Now that’s what I call a humane system.
I’ve never seen a lefty (or a righty, or an independent, for that matter) on this board say those things. I’d like to note the number of them who have, so could you please show me some of these statements?
Again, I’d like to note that number, but I can’t find any examples of what you’re talking about. Perhaps you could show some.
Can you produce even one written statement from a left-wing organization that advocates the position you ascribe to them? I don’t think you can, and I certainly don’t think you can even come close to proving, or showing, or suggesting that this is what left wing people want. Cite?
Yes, we know. They do it for the money. We got that. People often suffer and sometimes die as a result. You got that?
Is it not murder if you’re wearing a nice suit?
I recall a number of consevatives sharing this rather draconian viewpoint, but no liberals. I think you are mistaken.
We’re just getting warmed up! Bike paths everywhere, you want to buy a car, you’ll have to prove you’re too stupid and lazy to bike. Gotta be both, lots of smart and lazy.
You go into a bar and order a double bourbon, a FedNanny will pop up and offer you a bong load of Maui Wowee instead. We will also be on the cutting edge to make organic munchies that taste as good as junk food.
If an American child goes to bed hungry, we all do, until we fix that.
These are our demands. Lucky for you, we are willing to compromise. A little. For now.
Could wage doubling be in everyone’s future?
Wait…what? Oh, now I see what the problem is.
I don’t want to embarass you here, SA, but it appears you’ve got this backwards. The liberal position isn’t that people should be denied expensive health care options. The liberals are the ones saying everybody should be guaranteed these options. Universal health care, get it?
Now that we’ve cleared that up, welcome aboard the pro-life pro-UHC side.
Well I’m a registered democrat who is a moderate and those things give me pause. I think it’s realistic to discuss where the lines should be drawn. When it comes to life saving surgery then I’d say we must go ahead but am I as a taxpayer willing to pay for rehab several times for an alcoholic or drug abuser. Not so much.
It’s a common problem on the right. They seem most deliberate in confusing being in favor of maximizing the production rate of immortal souls, with being in favor of actual human life as we know it.
That’ll be next. “Obama wants to establish methadone distribution centers in our grammar school cafeterias!!”
I’m a… I don’t know what the hell I am, but I think it’s very realistic.
Our culture has an extraordinarily childish grasp of death.
I’d also like organ donation to be a prerequisite of care, but that’s a pipe dream.
Not every liberal is saying that. I’ve read several times around here where a liberal poster defends as perfectly reasonable the practice that exists in other countries where palliative care is given rather than curative care when the patient becomes too old or needs care that would be too expensive given their predicted lifespan afterwards. Other posters have described such a practice here as being reasonable also as they think no one lives forever and its foolish to spend money on old people who have lived their lives instead of on younger people who would derive more benefit from it. (Don’t ask me for cites because I’ve tried. The board’s search engine eliminates short keywords and finds too many threads and posts on the others because the appropriate keywords are too common.)
The concern is also that as UHC becomes the norm and then becomes overburdened financially, that is the time at which government will begin denying expensive health care for the elderly and those whose lifestyles have created their condition. And of course from that, it’s a short leap to the government telling us we’re not covered if we smoke, if our cholesterol is too high, if we drink, if we weigh too much, etc. (Don’t believe the government would use financial aid as a sledge hammer to enforce its will? Ask state governments who are constantly having to bow to federal wishes or lose federal highway matching funds.)
Something isn’t a right if the government can take it away, and the government can take it away or deny it arbitrarily and at will. And as William F. Buckley once said and which I’ve repeated here several times: “Government can’t do anything for you except in proportion as it can do something to you.”
In other words, if government is in the position of being able to grant you health care, it is also in the position of being able to deny you health care, and it is when the costs begin to become prohibitve that the denials will begin.
No one seriously thinks Obama or the current Congress want to “kill” anyone. But as time goes by and funding becomes difficult, the concern is that government will begin to find reasons why it’s acceptable to “allow” people to die, and to begin dictating to people how they must live in order to qualify for coverage.
Can someone guarantee that when the sun rises tomorrow, it won’t reach down with a giant flaming hand and give me a wedgie?
This has been a concern of mine for some time.
How about an Eric Wedgie? If you’d take him, I’d appreciate it.
Conveniently located next to the needle exchange run by the hall monitors.