Showing 41 to 60 of 286
41. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:38 BST
@CJ: I know the Robin Hood thing of "take from the rich to help the poor" might seem noble, but upperclass isn't what you think of when you think "rich." If you're in upper class, it means you can afford luxuries (like vacations, video games, etc), but you can't blow tons of cash and you still have to watch like everyone else. If you tax the upper class a lot, you make them essentially middle class. Plus, people up there work hard for their money, why should they be punished for it? And "middle class America?" Excuse me for living in a country where a lot of people are middle class, white, and have their own opinions.
@Turbo Genesis: You should really sway congress with that argument. "Hey, if we make universal health care it means less commercials! Woo hoo!" That'll really make em' do it.
42. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:38 BST
Under the House plan the government would be able to take money out of your own bank account to pay for certain medical needs.
@Turbo Genisis 64 there would have been no attempt to save your grandmother's life under this current plan because she would be too old for them to even consider her.
Edited on Tue 11th August, 2009 @ 00:42 by gameking23
I rule when it comes to games. So deal with it.
43. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:43 BST
A huge problem with our healthcare system is that it is based on capitalism. Medical companies' only goal is to sell. You see ads for weight loss supplements, erectile disfunction commercials, etc. We feel like we can 'buy' our way out of anything, so we buy into these scams. We hardly see any push by companies to live healthy lives because where's the money in that? An unhealthy population brings in more profit for these companies. I don't know what the best answer is, but staying with what we have can only get worse.
44. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:50 BST
To me it seems incredible that the world's largest superpower doesn't even provide basic medical care for it's citizens.I don't see how anyone could oppose ensuring everyone has access to essential medical care. Granted the NHS (UK national health service) isn't the best in the world but access to medical care is a basic human right that everyone should have! Maybe you would have to pay slightly higher taxes but stop thinking about yourself for one second and think of the greater good.At the end of the day, having a government run health service doesn't stop you from seeking private medical attention if you so desire, so why deny free treatment to the people who need it?
45. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:52 BST
@zero I'm betting what you're calling 'middle class' is actually working class, but that's by the by
What I meant by that comment, is that most of people on TV and in the papers who will be telling you it's a bad idea, are worrying about their wallets, not the american people, or the health service.
And what about the factory worker, who does 40 hours a week on minumum wage and struggles to feed his family? Can he not have health care, cos the rich (and I mean the real rich) don't want to lose an extra 10 cents out of every dollar they earn? Seems abit selfish... Is that the american dream?
Edited on Tue 11th August, 2009 @ 00:52 by CJ1
46. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:53 BST
I'm against it, for many reasons. One is that a panel of "experts" hired by Obama will decide if the red pill or the blue pill works better. What if I need the red pill for my specific strand of disease, but my doctor could only give me the blue pill, under the European plans, which the house plan is based off of. Also, if they can't run a cafeteria, with a budget of $1.3 million, I don't trust them with 1/7 of our entire economy. Furthermore, the weasels in Washington lied to you by saying you can keep your current plan, while at first, yes, but if a corporation that has a limited budget, and has to make profit, competes with a corporation with unlimited budget, and doesn't have to make profit, someone has to go. And we know who that will be. And finally, they didn't do well with social security, that can't do well, with health care.
Really, health care is a right? But of course, not for anybody who lived 100s of years ago. So you belive in this. It is a monstrosity of a bill written by our second worst president ever, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Edited on Tue 11th August, 2009 @ 00:58 by metakirbyknight
Stalk me on my Twitter.Proud Homebrewer.
47. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:58 BST
I don't think people should die because they can't afford a certain surgery or drug.
That logic alone trumps any argument you can have against there being a government run option. The way things are set up now, the companies are in it for profit and they don't care if you die or need something as long as they profit.
Water Warfare 3481-0499-8502Super Smash Bros. Brawl 2535-5527-9255
48. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 00:59 BST
They don't die, under this plan though, if you are old, or if Obama and his panel just don't like you, you will die.
Edited on Tue 11th August, 2009 @ 00:59 by metakirbyknight
49. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:10 BST
What I hear about less quality is a bit baffling. Most of the people that would benefit have no care at all. Period. Kind of hard to lessen quality from that isn't it? Unless you mean poorer people being able to recieve free health care means less quality for you (a questionable claim), which is a bit of a dick argument.And anybody who claims this is socialism gets their balls cut off by me.
Edited on Tue 11th August, 2009 @ 01:27 by The_Fox
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Treaty of Tripoly, article 11
50. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:15 BST
@metakirbyknightI'm slightly confused, are you saying because people hundreds of years ago didn't have universal healthcare that we shouldn't in the 21st century? Everyone should be able to have access to medical treatment regardless of their financial situation; to turn a blind eye to human suffering is just inexcusable. Also, I've never even heard of this bill that I apparently believe in. I've read the excerpt you posted though, could you please tell me what specifically you find objectionable about it? Do you not believe that the government has a duty to protect it's most vulnerable citizens.
51. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:15 BST
The most crucial aspect of a free or low-cost health care plan is that it provides preventative health care. My fiance and I are in college and can barely afford our tuition. The last time she had a dentist appointment (about a year ago) she was told she has two cavities that will need to be filled during her next appointment. The problem is, neither she nor her working class parents can afford the fillings, so she doesn't know what to do. She worries they may get worse, but it is expensive to go get them checked out, and if we can afford that we know we can't afford the fillings anyway. All she can do right now is take good care of her teeth and hope nothing gets worse
So, the question is, in our great economy that prides itself on its supposed efficiency, wouldn't it be more efficient to provide annual or bi-annual dental checkups at an affordable price rather than do nothing about it and letting the tooth rot? Because a root canal is much more expensive, either for the taxpayer or the individual.
52. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:16 BST
@metalkirbyknightDon't be foolish. Of course under the system we have now people die if they can't afford a medication or surgery.I broke my back a few years ago, and it was sheer luck I had excellent health coverage. Due to the costs, though, my insurance skyrocketed my premiums. I was able to handle that for a few months, so a loophole allowed them to drop me altogether. Now, due to my history, I can't get any health insurance to cover me. None. If I were to get injured my only options would be to work through it, or to try and go to a clinic and get care, or maybe skip out on a hospital bill (you can imagine that would only work once). If I had a chronic condition? Forget it. Unless I could pony the cash I'd be f*cked. What a great system we have.
53. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:25 BST
and that, The Fox, (as someone with a chronic condition) is why I value the NHS. I can only imagine how horrible it would be to worry about my health AND how I can afford to pay for my care
54. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:25 BST
I've said it before and will again. Free health care appeals to the poorer, while the richer don't want it. It means they have to pay more and get worse medical attention than what they have now, unles they want to put out serious amounts of cash along with very higher (not slightly whoever said that) taxes. Simple as that really, you won't get anywhere on this forum because that's how it turns out at the end of the day.
@CJ: Here's s shocker: money is what you need to survive. Money buys food, water, shelter, gas, education, etc along with your luxuries. It's a whole lot more than 10 cents a day. And "poor factory worker that works 40 hours a week for minimum wage" died out a long time ago buddy. American financial classes are very loose, the "really rich" don't have a class of their own. "The American Dream" can't even apply here, it's meaning got twisted after a while.
More affordable health care I definitely approve of, even paid health care for fatal illnesses, however free for everyone, for everything (that includes dentist) is another story.
@The Fox: "Dick argument?" Possibly, however, the world is not cotton candy and rainbows, you have to put yourself and your family first.
Edited on Tue 11th August, 2009 @ 01:27 by Bahamut_ZERO
55. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:34 BST
Exactly Zero, (although I don't really understand where that rant came from) money is what you need to survive... and excuse me if im wrong, but isn't there aload of americans who cant afford healthcare because they spend it all on food, water and shelter?
If there isn't, and all american workers earn enough to live in mansions, why is your country even having this debate?
56. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:35 BST
@CJExactly. Cases like yours whom have a pre existing chronic condition and can't afford ongoing medical care out of pocket (and few can) are why we need a change here.
@BZSo, your argument is you'll take care of your own and let the poor die in the gutter? There are few examples of when I would want the government in my business, but our current health care system makes me sick (no pun intended).
57. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:39 BST
@CJ and The Fox: May I present you with this lovely quote from my post:
58. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:44 BST
I've said it before and will again. Free health care appeals to the poorer, while the richer don't want it. It means they have to pay more and get worse medical attention than what they have now, unles they want to put out serious amounts of cash along with very higher (not slightly whoever said that) taxes. Simple as that really, you won't get anywhere on this forum because that's how it turns out at the end of the day.@CJ: Here's s shocker: money is what you need to survive. Money buys food, water, shelter, gas, education, etc along with your luxuries. It's a whole lot more than 10 cents a day. And "poor factory worker that works 40 hours a week for minimum wage" died out a long time ago buddy. American financial classes are very loose, the "really rich" don't have a class of their own. "The American Dream" can't even apply here, it's meaning got twisted after a while.More affordable health care I definitely approve of, even paid health care for fatal illnesses, however free for everyone, for everything (that includes dentist) is another story.@The Fox: "Dick argument?" Possibly, however, the world is not cotton candy and rainbows, you have to put yourself and your family first.
What do you mean ""poor factory worker that works 40 hours a week for minimum wage" died out a long time ago buddy."? Do you mean to say that you believe there aren't people like that in America? There are thousands of people who work multiple jobs just to keep themselves and their families afloat, people who work much harder than a majority of "upper class" families. It is foolish to suggest that the upper class are rich simply because their 'hard work' paid off. It is much more complicated. Our system doesn't value hard work. For many families, hard work and poverty coexist, with no prospects of a self-sufficient future.
59. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:47 BST
@zero Okay, im not sure what you're definition of a fatal illness is (a terminal disease? a heart attack?) but that atleast shows some compassion... though what about someone who suffers from Parkinsons? is that not serious enough?
Edited on Tue 11th August, 2009 @ 01:48 by CJ1
60. Posted: Tue 11th Aug 2009 01:48 BST
Bahamut Zero:Oh? more affordable healthcare? Most plans that have propped up for that are still out of the reach for most of the poor. These are the people that live paycheck to paycheck. Cutting premiums and meds in half isn't going to cut it. And, hey, free care for a FATAL ILLNESS! WOW!!!!! Great news for diabetics that can't afford insulin or checks to manage their condition and have 15 -25 years cut off their life. Once it hits the fatal stage when they're blind, have had their feet amputated and are in chronic pain I'm sure the'll be glad the health system finally judged them worthy.
Sorry, this topic has been locked.