[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
You’re already paying for it, moron. Why should I pay for NOTHING? There is NOTHING that the insurance I was offered would have covered, dumbass. Maybe a check-up, that’s it. It didn’t cover dental or eyes, didn’t cover any preexisting conditions, or prescriptions.
Once again-even if I HAD taken the Kmart insurance, since it didn’t cover anything, I’d still be going through the emergency room if I had something serious, rather than preventing it in the first place, because the insurance was worthless.
For godsakes, we’ve explained to you that this would SAVE you money. Jesus, I think you’re the reason the It’s Taking Longer Than We Thought.
But you are comfortable enough to believe that poverty is something that you will not experience in the future. Not a bad thing, really. However, I’m sure there are more than a few poor people who once thought that way.
Me? I pay my way. It’s difficult at times, but I like that I am able to do it. Will there come a time when I am NOT able? I don’t know. I hope not.
You seem to be of the opinion (and correct me if I’m wrong) that poverty is a symptom of poor character. That the poor are somehow deserving of their plight.
Listen, sweetie, you’re the one who’s not getting it. I don’t think you’re entitled to the ER, either. You’re like the ones who say that we should give $ to people, because if we don’t, they’ll just steal it anyway. Fuck that shit.
I ask again, where did you get the idea that you’re entitled to free healthcare?
Damn, girl! Be careful where you step when you get angry…you’re just lucky he’s too stupid to follow up on an opening like that.
Did you actually have a soul once and you sold it or something, or were you one of the misfortunate few born without one and forced to look to early Silas Marner and Ebenezer Scrooge for literary role models?
No, not at all. I just object to the idea that people with computers and internet connections are truly in poverty. And spare me the anecdotal tales of homeless people posting in the public library, please. Guin makes the claim that her healthcare insurance is (was) inadequate, but at the same time, there’s no evidence she has a job. Yet she has a computer and internet access. Hmmm. I just think she should get her own shit in order, before sucking off the public teat, as it were.
Public teat-how the hell do you know where I get my access? I don’t expect you to pay for that, and I don’t believe it’s any of your goddamn business, either.
Actually, you don’t pay your own bills for healthcare. You bought insurance for it instead. As it stands now, either you’re already paying for someone else, or someone else is paying for you. Are you sucking on the teat of your fellow insured?
The difference between UHC and our current situation is that we’d broaden the risk potential out even further, cut down on the corruption between the pharmas and insurance industry, and reduce all of our costs through smarter use of funds on things like preventive care and counseling.
Weirddave would be out of a job then, so I can see his reason for fighting against it. As for you, I wish that you’d get visited by three ghosts some Christmas Eve night. I’ve been rich, I’ve been poor, and I’ve been rich again. Luckily, I’m a healthy bastard, and was able to forgo medical care while I was temporarily unable to afford insurance. Situations change, and you’re not immunce. Hell, I pay about as much as you do in insurance, and I never go to the doctor. I’m also smart enough to know that my costs would go down if we did this right (like every other developed country seems able to do), so even if I were a greedy bastard, I’d be for UHC at this point in time. You’re not only selfish, you’re stupid with your money.
Oh, and Weirddave, remember your postulate earlier where you said that the “MeMeMe” attitude of Americans would end up driving the costs of UHC skyward, and I told you that the majority of the “MeMeMe” types weren’t even for UHC? Do I need to point out more examples than those that showed up here?
You know, milroj is right. But wimpy leftist that he is, he doesn’t go far enough. The obvious, rational thing to do is to learn from the success of the American health care system, and expand it into more areas. Fire service seems to be the easiest one to start with. Why should my precioussss tax money go to putting out fires in the home of some unemployed welfare-receiving freeloader who sucks at the public teat? Fire service should be paid for by private insurance. Employers could provide fire insurance for their employers, if they want to. Or you could get fire insurance on your own, if you prefer that. Or, if you know that you’re very careful about fire prevention, and your house is a safe one, you can choose to do without, or perhaps get an insurance which only covers putting out some kinds of fires, like those that might spread from your neighbours. Needless to say, all fire stations should be privatised. We all know that a private company will always provide better services for less cost than those lazy public servants. It would be a good idea to make sure that the fire insurance you choose covers services from the closest fire station – or at least a reasonably close one. When someone calls 911, the operator would need a computer system which could tell quickly which insurance company the owner of the burning property has insurance with, and route the alert to the closest fire company covered. (S)he should also alert the fire companies covering the neighbouring properties, so they can keep the fire from spreading. To find the best fire insurance for your needs, there would be a market for insurance brokers like Weirddave, who could help you find you exactly what kind of insurance you need, and how to get it at a price you can afford. We might have to give some concessions to bleeding heart commies and offer some kind of FireAid for the uninsured, at least to cover stuff like helping children out of burning buildings. Dead children tends to be bad PR.
Admittedly, this might lead to a slight increase in costs to cover administration, and it could possibly mean a bit more fires – not only for the uninsured, who deserve it – but for the insured, as some fires might spread further than they would have done under a nasssty socialised fire service. But those are costs well worth paying – I’d gladly pay more money for a worse service if it means that my precioussss money are only paying for me!
Next up for reform is the police. (Hey, there’s a lot to be saved there! Look at the low rates of convictions for rape cases, for instance – I could leave rape coverage out of my police insurance and save a bunch of money!)
hildea, you put forth that example satirically, but there ARE people who’d prefer if fire and police were privatized. I can’t remember who they were, but I know I’ve seen that idea advanced seriously on this very board a couple years ago.
I realise that having grown up in a country with UHC I’m starting from a different mindset to begin with, but I just cannot understand your arguments.
Everything you say just makes me more and more convinced of your selfishness and your disregard for the well-being of others.
Deciding who lives and who dies based on their income (or inherited wealth) and ability to pay is neither just, nor does it acknowledge the inherent worth of each person as an individual.
I don’t think you get where we’re coming from either, but I hope you will. Maybe you’re one of those people who needs something that affects them personally before they change their minds.
Since, in this case, it would require a major illness, for your sake, I’d rather you live in ignorance than experience the faults of the system first hand.
Omy gosh! You are from a different country. You think it matters to most Americans that 18,000 people every year die because they lacked health care coverage? As long as only 15% of the population lacks health coverage, it’s okay. They’re lower class, they do the work the rest of us are too good and smart to do. Let them die. You’re only worth what you earn.
I’ll just chime in here with the thought that those who seem to oppose UHC are forgeting that people are still born with disease in this country–and some acquire diseases that are not linked to “lifestyle” or “choices”. Yeah-I don’t have much sympathy for the 3 pack a day smoker who contracts lung CA (although I do think that we need to take care of him), but there are any number of chronic illnesses out there (that often require expensive, ongoing treatment) that are not a “choice” of anyone’s. And let’s not forget trauma victims–burns, for example. Very expensive, but maybe they shouldn’t have been in that car/building/forest etc.
So what do we do with these folks? Let them die, uncared for and bankrupt? Why not? They only contaminate the gene pool, anyway. Miserable bastards…how dare they have bad genes or the poor judgement that led them to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Assholes-tjaking money from my pocket, my bank account.
:rolleyes: <smiley inserted for those who don’t pick up on sarcasm>
What do we do with premies? With kids with birth defects that require PT/OT and special ed? What do we do with stroke victims–you can be as compliant as all get out with your meds and still suffer a CVA. You can be diligent in your diabetic regime and still succumb to retinopathy (blindness) or kidney failure. You can not smoke, eat fish, stay lean and eat your 5 veggies a day and still get CA.
This is the human condition–illness will be with us until we are extinct. How it is not a basic right to have care provided is one of the biggest shames of this nation. Noone is saying it will be “free”–but the system we have now is moribund and circling the drain. Something must be done about it. What Bush has done most recently is make it harder for those who go bankrupt paying for that cardiac cath and open heart, those meds for the kids with asthma and diabetes etc to start over and “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”. Thanks, once again, GOP et al.
It is clear that those who oppose UHC hold the parents responsible for not buying enough insurance to cover the eventuality of such medical misfortunes, and inability to pay for such coverage indicates the parents are lazy low achievers who should not have made the decision to have children in the first place. Whatever happens to the unfortunate children is the fault of the parents, not society’s burden.
Perhaps I should have used the military as an example instead. Back in the good old days, if you wanted to serve in the Roman army, you had to buy your own gear. There was no cuddling of good-for-nothing mentulae who couldn’t afford their own personal weapons and armour. And we all know, of course, how successful the Roman army was. Alas, but then that radical Gaius Marius came along, and actually started recruiting welfare recipients, and spent good government gold on equipping them! After that it all went downhill – invasions, slave uprisings, civil war – and finally, the fall of the Republic. Government spending is dangerous stuff, I tell you.
Right. UHC opponents think that health care is a luxury, only affordable by the upper-middle class and rich.
So I ask them, should public education be a luxury only for the rich too? What about police and fire? Call 911 and ask for help, and they should ask you for your credit card number before they will come?