I mean, I'm a capitalist and I hate socialism an all, but

``

How is it immoral to make some people pay for others expenses "against their will?" We aren't talking chain gangs here. Physicians and doctors don't really care who they are dealing with when they are lying on a table bleeding to death. They are trying to save their life. Their salary is what they think of afterwards. As for successfull people (which I'll take as do-nothing investors who claim to work when they mostly shift numbers around rather than actually do real labor), they aren't the issue any more than anyone else.Here are some reasons why your "against their will" argument dosen't work.1) You are a citizen and get those same benefits back if you need them. You ARE NOT being robbed.2) If you don't like it you can leave the country or try to change it.3) It's selfish to refuse to recognize that while you may be making a lot of money others are getting paid much less for doing backbreaking, and imporntant labor. IT'S IMMORAL TO ACCEPT THE BENEFITS OF LIVING IN A SOCIETY SO LONG AS YOU FEEL YOU ARE WORKING HARD ENOUGH AND MAKING ENOUGH MONEY BUT TO REFUSE TO DISH OUT THE SAME BENEFITS TO OTHERS.IF YOU BUY IN TO THE SYSTEM THEN YOU SHOULD PAY YOUR DUES. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY YOUR OWN ISLAND AND MOVE AWAY.4) Your line of logic would have it be immoral for the north to try and stop the south from succeeding during the civil war simply because it was "against their will." I honestly don't think that the 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 blacks who composed of the South's population pre-emancipation were getting their will paid attention to either thanks to their "masters."Just because you do have to do something unwillingly dosen't always have to make it immoral. Especially if a government, which you willfully participate in dictates you should do it.5) What about the will of the people who don't have the money to pay for health insurance? Woulden't it be immoral to force them to die on the street against their will because they coulden't pay for a supposedly "elective" heart surgery?Go drive your SUV.

Actaully, the Europeans do have people coming in their back doors left and right. There's a reason Europeans literally hate the Muslem world more than us. They may not be fighting them, but The Germans and French hate the Turks. Along with the rest of the content.

The population of England is 60 million. The population of France is 60 million. The population of Germany is 80 million. is 40 million. That comes to around what the U.S. population is when you throw in Austria, Italy, and Switzerland. They all pull it off just fine. Why can't we? Their population is comparable; just broken up seven or eight ways. Don't we do that with the states.

It's also worth pointing out we are talking about health-care here. We are not talking about welfare and the money needed to live on the government for free and with no strings. Just healthcare. And strings CAN be added.

We are talking about things people need to stay healthy and that's it.

No Air Force Ones. No Escalades. None of that. Just things that save and better lives.

And the "stalin ass socialism?" Pfff. Ask anyone working in a federally funded clinic today. They really aren't that much different than your Giganto hospital in terms of bureacuracy. The difference is in one case there is public accountability and the other is run by fat cat CEO's. They'll get their paycheck either way. If it takes 20+ total years of education to become a Dr. there WONT be a lot of them and there WILL be a constant demand for them.

Think about that... tools.

Unbelievable wrote:

Prosperity is neither a privilege nor a right, dipshit.

I'll allow you to be wrong, it's your right.

Just like most people are morons who can't communicate via the written word to any degree of mastery, either.

Mr. Price writes like a certified retard. I guess its my obligation to pay for some sort of therapy to fix his confused and muddled brain.

Actually, it's more like Mr. Price writes like someone too lazy to spend the time needed to make a clear and concise post, and he just wants to rant. That or he is just obliging you by bringing the discussion to your level.

Just kidding! It's the first reason.

He also already has health insurance. You won't have to pay a dime for anything that happens to him. He has a job! He stays in shape! He will never have anything medically related happen to him.

Mr.Price wrote:

You won't have to pay a dime for anything that happens to him. He has a job! He stays in shape! He will never have anything medically related happen to him.

You're incredibly deluded. Why have insurance if you honestly believe all that? Do you really fail to realize that other people do subsidize your insurance coverage through their premiums? That's how insurance works, many people pay in and most never use services that would be worth anywhere near what they've paid in. If you truly believe that you're a negligible risk for medically related happenstance, then you'd be better off putting what you'd pay for a premium towards an interest-yielding savings account (e.g. CD). If you never have to touch it for medical expenses then you (or your will's beneficiary) will get that money back rather than it going into the pockets of fat cats who run the insurance company or own stock in it.

Mr.Price wrote:

It's also worth pointing out we are talking about health-care here. We are not talking about welfare and the money needed to live on the government for free and with no strings. Just healthcare. And strings CAN be added.

We are talking about things people need to stay healthy and that's it.

No Air Force Ones. No Escalades. None of that. Just things that save and better lives.

Wait a minute. First you want to tax everyone to high heaven to pay for insurance for everyone. Then, you want to take away all Escalades, which basically means anyones choice in a luxery vehicle. What is next? Starting to border on socialism to me...

If you are so impressed with that countries health care, go over there for 5 years. Live there and report back.

Mr.Price wrote:

Actually, it's more like Mr. Price writes like someone too lazy to spend the time needed to make a clear and concise post, and he just wants to rant.

That sounds eerily similar to what a retarded person would do when he wants an extra cookie with dinner.

I wasen't talking about talking Escalades away. I was making a direct pun off the conservative notion that all welfare recipients spend their money on hundred dollar shoes and expensive cars.

I was also pointing out that any form of socalized health care would be a far cry from welfare which pays people to live; not health care which pays for people to survive.

As for "........." that looks eerily similar to the shape of what I was using to do your mom with last night.

And why do I pay for insurance when im healthy, in shape, and not at risk? Simple, I pay 20 bucks a month for 150 dollar coverage. That's why.

Millions of other Americans would too.

OUT!

Mr.Price wrote:

I wasen't talking about talking Escalades away. I was making a direct pun off the conservative notion that all welfare recipients spend their money on hundred dollar shoes and expensive cars.

I was also pointing out that any form of socalized health care would be a far cry from welfare which pays people to live; not health care which pays for people to survive.

No, they spend their food stamps on food and diapers. Then they pull out a wad of cash to buy booze and smokes.

I've watched it happen hundreds of times.

"Free" (nothing is ever free... you nitwits) healthcare would be abused just as welfare is.

Quality of care would go down, it would be a financial mess.

I'm not interested in paying for things for other people. Thats socialism, which is just a withheld paycheck and 'free' groceries away from capitalism.

You dipshits want to unseat the foundations of what make this country great, and you have no f***ing idea what you are talking about.

The uninsured are still going to the ER and doctors, but end up bankrupt (and they are not all lazy idots milking the system). Society picks up their healthcare eventually. The insurance companies spend a significant portion of their revenues on administrative crap. Administrative crap = making sure they only insure healthy people and exclude anyone who may end up with a claim. If you are failry healthy they will insure the healthy aspect of your life, but exclude everything else as a "preexisitng condition." The insurance companies spend a fortune making sure they don't insure for exactly the things people need insurance to cover. So they end up insuring the people who do not really need insurance and we (the taxpayes) pay for the rest. The insurance companies make profits while we (the taxpayers) incur the loss. Great system.

The idea of insurance is to pool resources and cover the things that are really bad (cancer, bad car wreck...). If everyone is is in the same pool there will be a greater pool of resources and we will not be spending 20% (or more or less) of the resources excluding the people who need the dang insurance. The profit driven system we currently have is not working.

this isn't entirely true...you are certainly right, most people will be on the losing end when it comes to insurance but you don't buy insurance because you think it is a good investment - even if you are a good riskyou buy it because you are risk averse and no matter how small of a risk, there is a chance you would need medical coverageso even if you are the best risk, insurance can still add value depending on your risk aversion

I <3 South Carolina wrote:

If you truly believe that you're a negligible risk for medically related happenstance, then you'd be better off putting what you'd pay for a premium towards an interest-yielding savings account (e.g. CD). If you never have to touch it for medical expenses then you (or your will's beneficiary) will get that money back rather than it going into the pockets of fat cats who run the insurance company or own stock in it.

True. One gets insurance for the things that would severely hurt them financially. No matter how healthy you are it will not preclude a bad car wreck, a stray bullet, cancer, or some other event that would run medical costs far beyond what most people will make in 3 - 4 years of working. We are talking hundreds of thousand of dollars on the low side up to many millions of dollars. That is what insurance should protect. Everyone except the ultra wealthy needs insurance.

Are you denying that people have a need of life? And I agree with that statement, btw; everyone should contribute to the best of their abilities, and as long as they contribute, their needs should be met. But to deny someone potentially life saving healthcare because he/she failed to "optimize" his/her productivity/economic contribution is a bit immoral.

You ignored the fact that the person whose message I was replying to said that he has no risk of ever needing medical care.

phillie phan wrote:

Are you denying that people have a need of life? And I agree with that statement, btw; everyone should contribute to the best of their abilities, and as long as they contribute, their needs should be met. But to deny someone potentially life saving healthcare because he/she failed to "optimize" his/her productivity/economic contribution is a bit immoral.

I am not denying that people have a need of life. But why should my life be compromised to pay for others? Sure, that may be extremely selfish, but it is what it is.

Why should I lose a substantial portion of my paycheck to pay for some woman's 6 kids who she can't, and never expected to, financially support? If somebody "failed to 'optimize'" their economic contribution, why should we help them? Why should we pay for somebody who works 20 hours a week at minimum wage just because they can? They are purposefully being a drain on society, and should not be supported.

If you really support Marxist ideals, I suggest (and hope) you leave this country.

I live in Canada and we have Universal Health Care. First, it is not Free. We pay for it through taxes (higher taxes than in the US). The amount you pay into the Health Care system depends on how much income you make:

(hypothetically)

$9000 - 0% tax

$20000 - 15% tax

$45000 - 25% tax

$60000 - 35% tax

$100000 - 48% tax (fairly high!)

Clearly this system is designed to re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor more effectively than in the US, thus reducing the large income gaps that are seen in the US. I am not saying this is good or bad as there are pro and cons.

But what it comes down to is what a society values. In Canada, we have a nice mix of socialism and capitalism, we feel that collectively helping out those who are less fortunate (and sometimes even the lazy people) is important. In the US people are more individualistic and do not feel the obligation to support the collective good of their society, but feel strongly that their personal/family worth is tied into hard work and success.

both systems are flawed, its really a matter of chosing your poison. I will chose universal health care over private.

............... wrote:

Same red herring. If you are mute and can't write, your 1st amendment rights are not violated. If you can't afford a gun your 2nd amendment rights are not violated. You never have to incriminate yourself.

Your logic is horrific. Its not an arguable point.

Yours is the horrific logic here. And your examples are just incorrect.

If the government passes a law preventing your illiterate mute from burning a US flag, that violates the First Amendment's free speech protections. In other words, that person's rights have been violated--not to mention everybody else's under that jurisdiction.

If Congress passes a law banning hunting rifles, it violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Even if you do not own a gun, that law still violates the 2nd Amendment. In other words your rights have been violated even though you do not own a gun.

As for your assertion that "you never have to incriminate yourself." That is not true either. If you are granted immunity, you can be compelled to testify against yourself. But back to my point--if the state in which you live passes a law that requires suspects to confess, that law violates the 5th amendment. In other words, your rights have been violated even though you were not arrested.