Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, Oct 5, 2013.
libs think socialized medicine is the way to go
Get government out of the model! Have government regulate contracts like it suppose to. Unfortunately we have a fascist model now. The statists second best option... :smoke:
The only way to have them participate forcibly is to forcibly deduct the premium directly from their paycheck.
Please explain how a country that is $17 trillion in the hole with e one healthcare program thatnismbankrupt will pay for the extra $200+ million people added to its healthcare liabilities?
I just want to know whether Fred and the other statists are capable of learning this?
Good luck getting them to lower their fees.
That is the one and only part of the bill that I support.
They are too blind to see their selfishness. Of course you have no right to their life. It is disgusting and sad!
For all of those complaint about bankruptcy...let's look at a 2009 CNN article.
Estimated 1.5 million bankruptcies: approx 0.5% of the population.
60% or 900,000 will be for medical reasons: approx 0.3% of the population.
78% had insurance meaning 22% did not or 198,000: approx 0.06% of the population.
While it is unfortunate that anyone has to file for bankruptcy. It is not driving costs for delivering healthcare when you are writing off such a small amount!
Stretching real far for that one
Do you have numbers on this?
Neither is it "wrong"
Both are concepts that society agrees or disagrees with
But if you are going to give education via taxes, what's the argument against health care?
Do you think it's realistic to rely in charity for your overinflated hospital bills?
Charities can negociate the bill down. Much like...
https://medi-share.org/ms/lp/mobile...aritan Ministries&utm_campaign=Medi-Share PPC
You stated you believe everyone should have a RIGHT to healthcare.
If you, or anyone else, has a RIGHT to healthcare then the person who provides that RIGHT must be a slave to you and your wishes. Afterall, you cannot have a RIGHT to a service unless there is someone there to deliver that service to you at your beck and call.
You have no RIGHT to healthcare. You have the OPPORTUNITY for such. There is a difference. You are totally selfish if you believe you have the RIGHT to demand someone else provide a service for you.
Will be difficult to say she can hang out her own shingle (which she and her partners already have) and refuse government business when we are just a short step away from the Federal Government being that single payer you lust after. And if all the physicians elect to go into another profession, pray tell who will fulfill your RIGHT to healthcare at that point?
The only RIGHTS you possess are those free for you to exercise. The idea you have a RIGHT to the time and demands of another human being (i.e., someone MUST provide you with healthcare) is beyond the pale of membership in a free society. But, then again, your arguments do tend to reject such membership.
I do not know your age, but I pray your opinions are based on the ignorance of youth. Any other explanation would be troubling.
REP for this!
No. Nor do you have a RIGHT to have someone else provide instruction to you.
If people refuse to teach, would you still not have the opportunity to LEARN?
Actually, in the US, you have both the de facto right and responsibility for education up to a certain level. For example, the state constitution of Florida states:
So yes, according to the state of Florida, you have a right to have someone else provide instruction. Of course the big differences between this and slavery is that a person can leave that job (just as a Doctor can stop providing medical care) and that the job is compensated in the form of a negotiated salary.
Single Payer isn't "socialized medicine" no matter how many times you say it