...and pay for healthcare, why don't they buy everyone a gun?

Umm, too expensive?

Umm, too expensive?nah, one time purchase of a few hundred bux, lasts a lifetime. as opposed to healthcare....

Couple hundred bucks for a hand gun? Are you buying Chinese guns from walmart? I want my hand gun to be accurate, not blow up in my face and not be parkerized with lead..

Healthcare may be expensive and desirable ... but it is NOT a right.

*waits for the shock of that to set in*

Couple hundred bucks for a hand gun? Are you buying Chinese guns from walmart? I want my hand gun to be accurate, not blow up in my face and not be carbonised with lead..i would think you'd get a discount when ordering a few million...

Healthcare may be expensive and desirable ... but it is NOT a right.

*waits for the shock of that to set in*lol. *that's kinda the point.* ;)

however, the right to keep and bear arms is...

what about the right to life

It is seriously NOT a right.

"I have a right to x-rays for my liver cysts." BITCH, what if whoever invented x-rays hadn't invented them? You wouldn't be sitting there demanding some imagined RIGHT to them. Soooo frustrating, that dumbness.

That said, I support universal health care for Americans.

:|

Why don't they just teach medical procedures in school, since they aren't teaching anything else anyway. Then we wouldn't need doctors. Just access to labs and medical equipment. You could just rent your own X-ray machone for personal use.

Maybe because when you need to go to a doctor, and don't have insurance, money is something you could care less about, in other words, you can't put a price on your life and health, money should be an afterthought.

And I find it funny how we never have money for schools or healthcare, but we seem to have a never-ending supply for wars.

Preventive medicine would save us billions every year, how do we know universal coverage would actually cost us anything? Especially after we got the crooked insurance and HMO companies out of the way?

And I find it funny how we never have money for schools or healthcare, but we seem to have a never-ending supply for wars.

:nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice:

Maybe because when you need to go to a doctor, and don't have insurance, money is something you could care less about, in other words, you can't put a price on your life and health, money should be an afterthought.as opposed to when your life's in danger, and you need a cop, or a gun, but don't have one because you couldn't afford one? or better yet, because its illegal to own one (ala chicago, dc, etc)?

If you are talking about rights as defined by the Constitution, the government would be on stronger legal ground to supply guns than healthcare.

Maybe because when you need to go to a doctor, and don't have insurance, money is something you could care less about, in other words, you can't put a price on your life and health, money should be an afterthought.

And I find it funny how we never have money for schools or healthcare, but we seem to have a never-ending supply for wars.

Preventive medicine would save us billions every year, how do we know universal coverage would actually cost us anything? Especially after we got the crooked insurance and HMO companies out of the way?

Well, considering we spend billions and billions of dollars on education and free health care for the poor, and medicare for the elderly, I can't see where we "never have the money" for it. The federal spending on it goes up every single year, and I defy you to show me any year since 1965 that it hasn't.

Those "cuts" that liberals are screaming about have never happened. the exact opposite is the real story, and they call a 10% increase, as opposed to an 11% increase a "cut". That doesn't work in the real world; only in federal government land.

I've spent thousands and thousands in medical bills and health insurance over the years. I don't like spending it, but I don't like spending money on gas either, or food for that matter. But, these things are not rights, and if you want it, you have to pay. If you can't afford healthcare, you can apply for medical assistance. We also have plenty of uninsured people who choose to not buy insurance, mainly because they're young and don't think they need it yet. Then, if they crash their car and land in a hospital, they get hit with the bills later. Even then, assistance is available for those who qualify, and hospitals will work ith people, and even make settlements.

I had an experience of my own. It took three years, but my insurer negotiated a $96,000+ medical bill down to around 11 grand. The hospital ate the difference.

I have a very good friend who has received two transplants (kidney/pancreas), kidney dialysis, and all of his medications for over 6 years, and hasn't spent one thin dime on any of it. The medication alone would be over 4 grand a month if he had to pay out of pocket. The taxpayer has picked up the tab. He would have been dead years ago without it.

The help is there for those who need it. It's a nightmare to apply for, and you have to deal with some very unintelligent and downright rude people along the way sometimes, but if you stick with it, they will give it to you eventully. The only problem is that if you work more than 3 or 4 days a week, they take it away, and then you have to buy your own insurance, so too many people stay on disability rather than work to get back on their feet.

There's a huge work disincentive built into the system.

Healthcare is not a right. That said, I'm for a more universal healthcare approach and I'm for the government subsidizing gun ownership. For the record, a Glock 19 can be acquired for under 500 dollars including a trigger lock.

...and pay for healthcare, why don't they buy everyone a gun?

Because the public policy at issue is not "funding rights" but improving the general welfare.

Healthcare is not a right. That said, I'm for a more universal healthcare approach

:drool:

I wish other liberals could support policies they want to support without using dumb-ass logic to get there.

Maybe because when you need to go to a doctor, and don't have insurance, money is something you could care less about, in other words, you can't put a price on your life and health, money should be an afterthought.Yeah, particularly when someone else is footing the bill. Right?

I wonder when all this milking is going to stop. I make well more than the average. Still, I'm not getting rich. Somehow, that makes me responsible for paying and paying and paying for all the deadbeats who don't bother to get insurance? I heard that the fastest growing group of people without health insurace are ppl making more than $50k a year. Simply amazing...irresponsible.

And I find it funny how we never have money for schools or healthcare, but we seem to have a never-ending supply for wars.Hahaha...that's hilarious. Dood, we've spent trillions and trillions of dollars on schools, healthcare, social security, you name it. The "Great Society" sure knows how to spend money...we just don't know how to get results for the money we're spending. The more functions the government takes over, the more corruption and inefficiency takes over.

As for the schools in particular...in my area, we spend more than $7000 per student per year. I think that's a pretty hefty sum. Don't you?

Preventive medicine would save us billions every year, how do we know universal coverage would actually cost us anything? Especially after we got the crooked insurance and HMO companies out of the way?I'm not going to defend the insurance industry...but they are in business to make money. If you own mutual funds that are invested in that industry, you want the value of your portfolio to go up, right?

That being said...of course preventative medicine would save something. Every plan I've been in allows for a yearly checkup at minimal cost...or no cost. The reason that people are not going for their yearly checkup is that they're lazy or they don't feel sick so they think they don't need it or they don't want to sit around in the doctor's office with just their underwear on. I don't know...but when they don't take advantage of the benefit, the insurance companies get to keep the money.

Couple hundred bucks for a hand gun? Are you buying Chinese guns from walmart? I want my hand gun to be accurate, not blow up in my face and not be parkerized with lead..
I bought a very very nice Kimber 1911 clone in stainless steel with all the bells and whisles (match trigger, skeletonized hammer and trigger, bull barrel, etc) for like $700. You can get a Colt standard 45ACP for around $400. Revolvers are even cheaper.

Compared to childbirth or breast cancer or even a broken leg, that's pretty cheap.

:drool:

I wish other liberals could support policies they want to support without using dumb-ass logic to get there.

The only person I have seen so far making the "dumb-ass logic" that the government should fund rights or that health care is a right was the OP who is clearly opposed to government funding health care. I'm for universal health care for a couple of reasons:
1. it benefits everyone, not just the sick.
2. it is clearly the most efficient application of resources when you consider that everywhere market forces were allowed to choose a mechanism for funding health care that is the mechanism that came out of it.
3. It provides the least bureaucratic and therefore least abusable bang for the buck in taxpayer dollars. The simpler and cleaner and more generic the plan, the better.

The only person I have seen so far making the "dumb-ass logic" that the government should fund rights or that health care is a right was the OP who is clearly opposed to government funding health care. I'm for universal health care for a couple of reasons:
1. it benefits everyone, not just the sick.
2. it is clearly the most efficient application of resources when you consider that everywhere market forces were allowed to choose a mechanism for funding health care that is the mechanism that came out of it.
3. It provides the least bureaucratic and therefore least abusable bang for the buck in taxpayer dollars. The simpler and cleaner and more generic the plan, the better.

I was agreeing with you. The dumb-ass logic I referred to is the typical liberal line "It's a right." The accurate view, which I share with you, is the nuanced one you outlined above.

I'm for universal health care for a couple of reasons:
1. it benefits everyone, not just the sick.Okay, but it also burdens society a whole hell of a lot...because lots of people who don't work and don't pay taxes would need to have their healthcare paid for by someone else. A lot of those someone elses have their own financial struggles and challenges trying to provide for their own families. I don't think it is cool to take money from me that I would have spent on my kid's college fund, or new books for school, or kid's clothes, or whatever and instead have that money confiscated by the government (with no choice on my part) and spent on the needs/wants of strangers.


2. it is clearly the most efficient application of resources when you consider that everywhere market forces were allowed to choose a mechanism for funding health care that is the mechanism that came out of it.You must be joking. Name one thing the government does efficiently. If you need a clue as to how the system will be administered, look at Social Security. 30 years from the time we implement socialized medicine, they'll be talking about how the system is going broke...just like they are with SS now.


3. It provides the least bureaucratic and therefore least abusable bang for the buck in taxpayer dollars. The simpler and cleaner and more generic the plan, the better.Hahahaha...haven't you ever dealt with the federal government before? They're the most bureaucratic organization on Earth.

Okay, but it also burdens society a whole hell of a lot...because lots of people who don't work and don't pay taxes would need to have their healthcare paid for by someone else. A lot of those someone elses have their own financial struggles and challenges trying to provide for their own families. I don't think it is cool to take money from me that I would have spent on my kid's college fund, or new books for school, or kid's clothes, or whatever and instead have that money confiscated by the government (with no choice on my part) and spent on the needs/wants of strangers.
We pay anyways. Ultimately, we pay for emergency care because we legally will not permit a hospital to turn away the critically ill. In the meantime, people without health insurance infect the people around them instead of getting treatment until it is life-threatening. Then it is paid for by taxpayers through a brutally bureaucratic system that rewards inefficiency. In other words, you are paying more to not have universal health care than you would be to simply provide it, both in monetary and in actual health benefits of not being around more sick people.

You must be joking. Name one thing the government does efficiently. If you need a clue as to how the system will be administered, look at Social Security. 30 years from the time we implement socialized medicine, they'll be talking about how the system is going broke...just like they are with SS now.
The simple fact is, the market has spoken. We don't have pay-as-you-go health service in America. Everyone pays a tax in the form of premiums and takes the socialized health care model of health insurance. And the larger the company you work for (the larger the pool of contributors) the less expensive that premium is (the more efficient the overall health care service becomes). So the social health care model was what the market ultimately embraced. Oh, and by the way, the private model also has demanding investors that get 10% ROI and it pays for its entire bureaucracy of sales, marketing, analysts, investors, managers, help desk, etc, etc.

Hahahaha...haven't you ever dealt with the federal government before? They're the most bureaucratic organization on Earth.
Not quite, but they are very close. This is why I say keep it simple. The current model already provides health care to everyone. But it does it through a half-dozen different systems run by different departments in a manner that allows for abuse because it is so convoluted. Simplify the system, and the costs go down while the potential for abuse goes down. It is a win-win. Think of universal health care as a flat tax style solution for Medicare, Medicaid, emergency assistance, hospital grants, tax credits, and uninsured reimbursements. We would be replacing a half-dozen different organizations with a single organization that is smaller than the combined organizations. And it would simplify tax code while we were at it, keeping politicians from hiding little taxpayer funded easter eggs for their cronies.

Ban all Laywers and frivolus lawsuits...stop the lobbying by insurance compaines and Pharm corporations, and we would not need health care insurance. You would go to the doctor when you are sick and pay for out of pocket because it would be affordable like it was in the 40's and 50's when no one had health care insurance.

Ban all Laywers and frivolus lawsuits...stop the lobbying by insurance compaines and Pharm corporations, and we would not need health care insurance. You would go to the doctor when you are sick and pay for out of pocket because it would be affordable like it was in the 40's and 50's when no one had health care insurance.

And when brain cancer was not detectable because we had no MRIs, heart attacks were almost always fatal, and delivery from an accident site was done in the back of a police car or a modified hearse instead of a helicopter.

We need to face a simple fact: medicine is no longer a family business of understanding a few herbs and first aid. It is a highly-technical fast-developing industry with very limited market penetration. If hospitals were allowed to sell all of us a few stints in the big arteries, sure, we could get the price down to a couple of hundred bucks a shot. But they can't, they have to only sell to the limited few who need the procedure, get diagnosed correctly, and survive long enough to request it. And this is why we have chosen in the marketplace to socialize it. Because we all benefit from having a defibrillator in the trauma center, whether or not we all actually ever use it. Just like we all benefit from having a fire department even if our house never catches fire.

And when brain cancer was not detectable because we had no MRIs, heart attacks were almost always fatal, and delivery from an accident site was done in the back of a police car or a modified hearse instead of a helicopter.

We need to face a simple fact: medicine is no longer a family business of understanding a few herbs and first aid. It is a highly-technical fast-developing industry with very limited market penetration. If hospitals were allowed to sell all of us a few stints in the big arteries, sure, we could get the price down to a couple of hundred bucks a shot. But they can't, they have to only sell to the limited few who need the procedure, get diagnosed correctly, and survive long enough to request it. And this is why we have chosen in the marketplace to socialize it. Because we all benefit from having a defibrillator in the trauma center, whether or not we all actually ever use it. Just like we all benefit from having a fire department even if our house never catches fire.

True, but you have to admit paying 100.00 or more for a pain pill in the hospital is outrages, cut your knee and need stiches, pay about a thousand dollars or more....it is totally out of hand.

True, but you have to admit paying 100.00 or more for a pain pill in the hospital is outrages, cut your knee and need stiches, pay about a thousand dollars or more....it is totally out of hand.

On the upside, I just had surgery done and I think it was only a few hundred dollars. And it was entirely out-patient. Hospitals aren't working quite correctly because we have a lot of great clinics that are getting the mid-priced work and hospitals are stuck trying to make money off of emergencies and the very high-end lab stuff.

The only person I have seen so far making the "dumb-ass logic" that the government should fund rights or that health care is a right was the OP who is clearly opposed to government funding health care. it wasn't my logic. i was merely restatning what i've read elsewhere, so don't presume to know what i'm in favor of.
I was agreeing with you. The dumb-ass logic I referred to is the typical liberal line "It's a right." The accurate view, which I share with you, is the nuanced one you outlined above.:nice:

We pay anyways. Ultimately, we pay for emergency care because we legally will not permit a hospital to turn away the critically ill.I see...so we're already paying for it. So, if that's the case, I won't be asked to "contribute" more tax dollars under a socialized medical program than I'm paying in now? Yeah, right...somehow I'm skeptical.

The government doesn't pay for anything. The taxpayers do.

The government doesn't pay for anything. The taxpayers do.
Once people figure that out and stop letting politicians buy their offices with our own money, we'll be in a far better position as a nation and as individuals.

Personally, I think the next politician that gets on a podium and offers new ways the government give us something should be stoned to death.