How can anyone be against universal health care?

Ooberman · Post by **Ooberman** » Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:14 pm

It may cost some extra money, but when was money more important than health?

nayrbsnilloc · Post by **nayrbsnilloc** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:05 pm

[Replying to post 169 by Goat]

Because it would no longer be charity, which is defined as the voluntary giving of help

olavisjo · Post by **olavisjo** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:06 pm

.

olavisjo wrote: FACT: It costs more to treat people who do not have a routine medical provider.

nayrbsnilloc wrote: Your assertion for "Fact" 2 has no founding and I dispute it for lack of any evidence whatsoever. Give evidence to support it and I may consider its validity from there, but at present it is merely an opinion that I have no reason to believe.

It seems to me, to be fairly, obvious that it costs a lot less to treat a condition early in a doctors office than in the emergency room when the condition has progressed to be much more serious.

In its fifth report, Hidden Costs, Value Lost: Uninsurance in America, the IOM Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance tallies some of the economic and social losses to the country of maintaining so many people without health insurance. It concludes that the range in expected annual benefits ($65â€“$130 billion) of insuring the uninsured who now lack coverage would cost an estimated $34 to $69 billion each year. (source)

nayrbsnilloc · Post by **nayrbsnilloc** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:14 pm

[Replying to post 168 by Ooberman]

As I stated before, I think that the government's primary purpose is the protection of its people's life, liberties (all liberties included) and pursuit of happiness. This means i am against the privatization of what the government is there for.

I believe the government should be in charge of:
Protection of its people's lives, internationally and domestic (military and police/FD)
Civil liberty protection (justice system and all other legal systems)
Some infrastructure (for the safety of the citizens)

The rest can be successfully privatized, but these would be regulated by the government and its democratically (more of a republic than a democracy) elected officials (again, as a protection of civil liberties)
Economy
Food/Health Standards
Education
Transportation
Land and resources

nayrbsnilloc · Post by **nayrbsnilloc** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:17 pm

[Replying to post 171 by olavisjo]

guess what? by paying for neither of those sets of numbers (aka NOT treating those that can't pay) they save even more money.
Payment is still necessary by the receiver of health care.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:28 pm

nayrbsnilloc wrote: [Replying to post 169 by Goat]

Because it would no longer be charity, which is defined as the voluntary giving of help

So it's not charity. Does the person get the food they need to survive? Do they get to stay in a warm place in the winter?

Who cares what you call it. Do those people get the help they need?

nayrbsnilloc · Post by **nayrbsnilloc** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:54 pm

Goat wrote:
nayrbsnilloc wrote: [Replying to post 169 by Goat]

Because it would no longer be charity, which is defined as the voluntary giving of help

So it's not charity. Does the person get the food they need to survive? Do they get to stay in a warm place in the winter?

Who cares what you call it. Do those people get the help they need?

None of that has to do with health care which is the issue here, because health care is a good/service that must be paid for.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:30 pm

nayrbsnilloc wrote:
Goat wrote:
nayrbsnilloc wrote: [Replying to post 169 by Goat]

Because it would no longer be charity, which is defined as the voluntary giving of help

So it's not charity. Does the person get the food they need to survive? Do they get to stay in a warm place in the winter?

Who cares what you call it. Do those people get the help they need?
None of that has to do with health care which is the issue here, because health care is a good/service that must be paid for.

Yes.. we discussed that earlier. You seem to be going in circles right now, without any adequate reasoning for your opinion. It seems to boil down to 'I don't want to pay for anybody else'

That is not any kind of rational reason what so ever.

nayrbsnilloc · Post by **nayrbsnilloc** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:35 pm

[Replying to post 176 by Goat]

How is believing in the protection of personal property irrational?

Exploiting one group of people to aid another is inadmissible, regardless of whether somebody decides that one group "deserves more."

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:31 pm

nayrbsnilloc wrote: [Replying to post 176 by Goat]

How is believing in the protection of personal property irrational?

Exploiting one group of people to aid another is inadmissible, regardless of whether somebody decides that one group "deserves more."

Look, you pay taxes already.. so it is nothing different than that. The whole 'believing in personal property' is one big red herring.

I mean, you pay taxes for the roads, for the police, for public education, and for the military. You pay taxes to subsidize the oil companies, and farmers. You pay taxes to blow people up in Afganistan and Iraq.

Yet, you don't want to pay even a fraction of that to help your neighbor , and also benefit yourself?? Give me a break.

nayrbsnilloc · Post by **nayrbsnilloc** » Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:37 am

Goat wrote:
nayrbsnilloc wrote: [Replying to post 176 by Goat]

How is believing in the protection of personal property irrational?

Exploiting one group of people to aid another is inadmissible, regardless of whether somebody decides that one group "deserves more."

Look, you pay taxes already.. so it is nothing different than that. The whole 'believing in personal property' is one big red herring.

I mean, you pay taxes for the roads, for the police, for public education, and for the military. You pay taxes to subsidize the oil companies, and farmers. You pay taxes to blow people up in Afganistan and Iraq.

Yet, you don't want to pay even a fraction of that to help your neighbor , and also benefit yourself?? Give me a break.

Paying taxes because I am legally obligated to and agreeing with where the money goes are two separate things. I can obey the law while still disagreeing with it. I would push for the kind of reform I suggested as well.

You're picking and choosing what I have said I am against. I have very clearly laid out what I think the government's purpose should be in several of my previous posts, including that I am against the international wars that we are waging, and if I had the choice I wouldn't fund them through my taxes.

You are also misunderstanding the purpose of my posts. I am personally FOR helping your neighbor, and that includes financial support. I am AGAINST making it a legal obligation to help your neighbor. I don't know why this is so hard to understand...