Bottom line...

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by OPTIONAL777, Mar 24, 2010.

Should health care only be for those who can afford it?

  1. Yes

    2 vote(s)
  2. No

    9 vote(s)
  1. Vote.
  2. You posted that the market loved the health care bill and it flourished for two days after. Now the market is showing signs of
    ill health for all the discontent noise going on in the aftermath; teabaggers screaming bloody murder and all.
  3. Ricter


    Too simply put. Do you mean any and all healthcare services to anyone and everyone, regardless of their ability to pay? Probably not. The devil is in the details.
  4. An illegal alien comes into the er hemmoraging blood from a stab wound. He's going to get treated regardless of what the law says, he's just not going to get to stay and he esp. isn't going to get triple bypass surgery because his arteries are backing up or a liver transplant or chemo if he needs that. I wonder what Denmark would do? This freedom thing, it seems often to bring out the worst in people.
  5. Here is the real kicker...

    Say a terrorist who is also an illegal alien bombs a building.

    He is found, still alive. He is badly wounded and needs all kinds of health care to stay alive. During the recovery process in the finest hospitals, they discover he has cancer and all sorts of problems.

    The "government" spends over 10 million dollars just keeping this guy alive so that he can be "brought to justice."

    The right winger don't really complain at all, because they want to see him kept alive so that he can be executed...

    Now isn't that odd?

    They right wingers have no real problems spending the money to keep this guy alive, but complain about having to spend tax revenues when an upstanding hard working American loses there job and can't get health care because of the job loss...

    Face it, most people don't think through the Kool-Aid they are drinking...

  6. Ricter, tragedy of the commons............??
  7. Blotto


    "There is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel."

    --Ayn Rand

    If you cannot "afford" health care, that is to say you have nothing of value to pay the skilled people who would treat you, why should you feel entitled to it?

    Should doctors be forced to work for free? Or should those who have property have it confiscated to pay for the medical needs of others? To what extent? Is this moral?

    How many of these moochers who demand "free" health care actually would have the means to pay for it, if they did not squander their wealth on frivolities (and interest on the debt incurred servicing an extravagant lifestyle)?

    Could the average American afford to pay for healthcare if the state did not confiscate 50% of earned income to pay for the perpetually expanding government, aid to "developing countries" and foreign wars?