Joe Wilson's Free Health Care

[The Luke]

Haven't heard a proper argument from you.

As long as government benefits should apply to everybody equally, where's my private 747?  Where's my personal chef?  Where's my secret service protection?  Where's my private helicopter?  After all, I work just as hard as the POTUS.

...healthcare is a basic human right. Its denial undermines civil society.


But to answer your silly arguments:

-you don't have a private 747... but a taxpayer-funded government-run socialised body does implement the stringent regulations that make airplane travel safer than car travel. It's called the FAA: Federal Aviation Authority

-you don't have a private chef... but a taxpayer-funded government-run socialised body does enforce the stringent regulations that guarantee the safety of your food. It's called the FDA: Food and Drug Administration

-you don't have personal secret service protection... but a taxpayer-funded government-run socialised police force does enforce the laws desigend to ensure your personal safety and liberties. Even besides the local police force you are probably aware of, there is also the FBI and CIA and NSA and Homeland Security... ALL taxpayer-funded government-run socialised institutions... not forgetting your taxpayer-funded government-run socialised army.

-you don't have a personal helicopter... but you can avail of taxpayer-funded government-run socialised public transport systems which are subsidised with taxpayer dollars. Buses, trains, school buses, roads, footpaths, bridges, tunnels etc etc... ALL taxpayer-funded/tax-payer-subsidised government-run socialised transport systems. If you need rescuing from a mountainous region, you actually do get a private helicopter.


Your silly reductio ad absurdum protestations are arguments for PAYING MORE TAXES, not less... arguments for MORE GOVERNMENT, not less... MORE SOCIALISM, not less...

You sir, are pwning yourself.

 

Luke cops firemen teachers also get these benes too.  Do you begrudge their kids as well from benefitting?

...no, but why begrudge an illegal immigrants kid either? A human being in need is still a human being in need.

I believe America should adopt either the French or Canadian system.

Total... universial... unlimited... care. Single payer. I'd even go so far as to include dental and outlaw private health insurance: an identical plan for everyone... politicians; oligarchs; hobos; everyone.

The French system costs about 60% of what America CURRENTLY PAYS, and only some of America is paying. The French system is the best in the world, America (even for those with coverage) doesn't even come close.

If America just adopted the French System and gave EVERYONE who currently has no coverage (even illegals) a totally free ride... all that would mean for those who do already have healthcare (those opposing reform), would be an increase in coverage (no limits; better quality); no denial of service; and a halving of their current premiums.

Sounds good.

your misunderstanding reciveing health care from the govt for a job which is recieving health care from the govt
isnt the same as govt run health care in which everybody recieves health care regardless of job or contribution....

you want to point to them as reasons for single payer but they contribute and its part of their contract nobody is stoping you or anyone else from joining up so if you want it that bad go join up...

...veterans care is taxpayer-funded.
...veterans care is government-run.
...veterans care is socilaised.

It is YOU who doesn't properly understand the definitive differences between government-run healthcare (which America already has: Tricare; Medicare; Medicaid the VA; County Hospital ERs etc) and UNIVERSIAL HEALTHCARE (which is what you are so irrationally afraid of).

It's just fear of the misunderstood. Learn the difference and try to understand it.


The contributive argument is equally vacuous and redundant: CHILDREN DO NOT CONTRIBUTE.

If you want to deny coverage to non-contributors, start with your own children: citizens who do not work; do not serve in the military and drain resources from all areas of society.


Or maybe try applying whatever justifications you use on behalf of YOUR CHILDREN to other human beings. Like Jeebus would.

America is already being fleeced by the HMOs because your fear-based reactionary politics allows all sorts of parasitic industries to suck you dry... working Americans are already paying DOUBLE the cost of universial; quality healthcare, yet your care is not universial, it doesn't even always cover those paying for it:

-HMOs deny 20% of doctor recommended claims

-62% of bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs

-78% of those bankrupted HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE



You fools are paying the exhorbitant cost of your own ignorance and stupidity, yet you defend the system that is enslaving you.

If the system shits on your head, at least have the dignity not to lick your lips.



The Luke

[tonymctones]

sorry hoss health care is not a basic human right its a business same as any other and as such is designed to make profit.

Ppl dont go through med school to help society they do so to make money.

wherever you go that looney idea that health care is a basic human right is wrong whats next houses for everyone, cars for everyone?

[Skip8282]

...healthcare is a basic human right. Its denial undermines civil society.


But to answer your silly arguments:

-you don't have a private 747... but a taxpayer-funded government-run socialised body does implement the stringent regulations that make airplane travel safer than car travel. It's called the FAA: Federal Aviation Authority

-you don't have a private chef... but a taxpayer-funded government-run socialised body does enforce the stringent regulations that guarantee the safety of your food. It's called the FDA: Food and Drug Administration

-you don't have personal secret service protection... but a taxpayer-funded government-run socialised police force does enforce the laws desigend to ensure your personal safety and liberties. Even besides the local police force you are probably aware of, there is also the FBI and CIA and NSA and Homeland Security... ALL taxpayer-funded government-run socialised institutions... not forgetting your taxpayer-funded government-run socialised army.

-you don't have a personal helicopter... but you can avail of taxpayer-funded government-run socialised public transport systems which are subsidised with taxpayer dollars. Buses, trains, school buses, roads, footpaths, bridges, tunnels etc etc... ALL taxpayer-funded/tax-payer-subsidised government-run socialised transport systems. If you need rescuing from a mountainous region, you actually do get a private helicopter.

Thank you.  You made my point. 

You don't have healthcare....but the government provides for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, and so on.  Do you see how ridiculous your argument is?

When you try and justify having something because somebody else has it, the only time you'll have true equality is when everybody has exactly the same thing.

Now, if you want to argue that healthcare is a fundamental human right, something that a society should provide to it's populace...well, that's something I'm struggling to figure out myself.

[The Luke]

sorry hoss health care is not a basic human right its a business same as any other and as such is designed to make profit.

Ppl dont go through med school to help society they do so to make money.

wherever you go that looney idea that health care is a basic human right is wrong whats next houses for everyone, cars for everyone?

The Irish Constitution (I'm Irish by the way) provides:
-a right to housing (America has this too: project housing)
-a right to healthcare (America has this too)
-a right to work

...America is behind the times. In Ireland, people actually do go to Med School (for free) to help people.


For the record, America ALREADY recognises healthcare as a basic human right:

-prisoners of war receive FREE taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare

-"enemy combatants" at Gitmo receive FREE taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare

-prison inmates receive FREE taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare (and dental)

-children in care receive FREE taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare (and dental)


...America similarly has signed up to the Geneva Convention which recognises basic healthcare as a fundamental human right.


Why do I (a European) have to school you ignoramae on the intricacies of your own political system?



I still haven't heard any argument for transfering healthcare coverage ONLY to the children of those who receive free taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare (veterans etc).

All I'm hearing are FOX News talking points which are patently absurd falsehoods.

No interaction, no counter-argument, just regurgitated corporate news soundbytes.

For shame.



The Luke

[Skip8282]

For the record, America ALREADY recognises healthcare as a basic human right:

-prisoners of war receive FREE taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare

-"enemy combatants" at Gitmo receive FREE taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare

-prison inmates receive FREE taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare (and dental)

-children in care receive FREE taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare (and dental)

I think you make some really good points here as to whether or not healthcare should be a fundamental human right.

I still haven't heard any argument for transfering healthcare coverage ONLY to the children of those who receive free taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare (veterans etc).
The Luke

Yes you have, you just don't agree with them and you're not bright enough to distinguish that fact.

This is classic Eurotrash double speak.  Always telling Americans that they should butt out of other people's business while endlessly butting into ours.  We crossed an entire ocean to get away, and still you ass wipes manage to try and meddle in our affairs.

[The Luke]

I think you make some really good points here as to whether or not healthcare should be a fundamental human right.

Yes you have, you just don't agree with them and you're not bright enough to distinguish that fact.

This is classic Eurotrash double speak.  Always telling Americans that they should butt out of other people's business while endlessly butting into ours.  We crossed an entire ocean to get away, and still you ass wipes manage to try and meddle in our affairs.

...English is my first language, and my reading comprehension is excellent.

So please articulate these cogent arguments that I have somehow missed.

Remember the requirement: a valid argument why veterans/servicemen should be allowed to extend their taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare coverage to their children and dependants, which DOES NOT similarly make the case for other groups.


Arguing military service as a prerequisite for access to such free taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare has its merits... but why then include the dependants?

If a child, any child, wants healthcare he/she should be forced to join the marines, or at least sign a legally binding contract to enlist at eighteen, right? That's at least consistent.

These scrounging soldiers children, and the orphans of soldiers are getting free taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare.

That's socialism? Right?



The Luke

[Skip8282]

Remember the requirement: a valid argument why veterans/servicemen should be allowed to extend their taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare coverage to their children and dependants, which DOES NOT similarly make the case for other groups.

The Luke

We've been over this.  Healthcare, for the service men/women and their families, is provided as a benefit of their job, not as a right.  Just as if you worked for Lowe's, Dell, Microsoft, or whoever, you can get healthcare for your family.

Military service is not the prerequisite, having a job that offers health benefits is. 

And therein lies the problem, a lot of companies won't or can't provide it.  So, now we're back to whether or not it should be a fundamental human right and the government should get involved.

[The Luke]

Military service is not the prerequisite, having a job that offers health benefits is. 

...and which healthcare coverage offering jobs would you recommend to an orphaned child?

...how do the handicapped get a healthcare coverage offering job?

...how do those born with a disease/condition ever beat the "pre-existing condition" exclusions?

...can single, childless soldiers donate their dependants coverage to some needy woman and her kids? (like Jeebus would)


This is another silly argument. See the fault in this thinking?


At the rate American corporations are shedding their healthcare responsibilities, within 50 years the ONLY way to get healthcare through your job will be to enlist.

Even WITH healthcare coverage, if you have a catastrophic medical incident then you have to run the gauntlet of a standard 20% denial policy. (20% of doctor recommended treatments are denied by HMOs)



Basically, you fools are screaming to support a system in which YOU pay DOUBLE what the French pay for their worlds best healthcare system (which is universial), and in exchange you get access to the 37th best healthcare system in the world while footing the bill for all the uninsured people; undermining your own society; and stuffing the coffers of greedy HMO executives.

Then if you do have a major need... a catastrophic condition/incident, then you get to roll a dice to see if you even get what you grossly over paid for.

If it comes up snake-eyes... sorry, bankruptcy, then homelessness, and low and behold YOU are now one of the scroungers.


Morons.

Close the HMOs, scrap premiums, pay less than half the premium in taxes and get Canada's system.

Simple.



The Luke

[Skip8282]

...and which healthcare coverage offering jobs would you recommend to an orphaned child?

...how do the handicapped get a healthcare coverage offering job?

...how do those born with a disease/condition ever beat the "pre-existing condition" exclusions?

...can single, childless soldiers donate their dependants coverage to some needy woman and her kids? (like Jeebus would)


This is another silly argument. See the fault in this thinking?


At the rate American corporations are shedding their healthcare responsibilities, within 50 years the ONLY way to get healthcare through your job will be to enlist.

Even WITH healthcare coverage, if you have a catastrophic medical incident then you have to run the gauntlet of a standard 20% denial policy. (20% of doctor recommended treatments are denied by HMOs)



Basically, you fools are screaming to support a system in which YOU pay DOUBLE what the French pay for their worlds best healthcare system (which is universial), and in exchange you get access to the 37th best healthcare system in the world while footing the bill for all the uninsured people; undermining your own society; and stuffing the coffers of greedy HMO executives.

Then if you do have a major need... a catastrophic condition/incident, then you get to roll a dice to see if you even get what you grossly over paid for.

If it comes up snake-eyes... sorry, bankruptcy, then homelessness, and low and behold YOU are now one of the scroungers.


Morons.

Close the HMOs, scrap premiums, pay less than half the premium in taxes and get Canada's system.

Simple.



The Luke

More nonsense because you can't address the argument.  Hence your need to consistently spiral down into name calling.

Again, what does this have to do with you?  Or Ireland for that matter?  Why do feel compelled to interfere with our affairs?

[The Luke]

More nonsense because you can't address the argument.  Hence your need to consistently spiral down into name calling.

...eh, what argument would that be? You haven't proffered a cogent argument.

Again, what does this have to do with you?  Or Ireland for that matter?  Why do feel compelled to interfere with our affairs?

...this kind of defensiveness would seem to indicate that YOU are avoiding the issue. I merely pointed out the logical inconsistencies in the argument put forth by those opposing healthcare reform.

No one has put forth an argument that doesn't cut both ways.


You, Skip8282, haven't even put forward any semblance of an argument yet you continue to accuse me of failing to address this imaginary argument of yours.

Could you simply quote your argument, I can't find anything resembling a proper argument in your posts.

Seriously.



The Luke

[grab an umbrella]

...eh, what argument would that be? You haven't proffered a cogent argument.


...this kind of defensiveness would seem to indicate that YOU are avoiding the issue. I merely pointed out the logical inconsistencies in the argument put forth by those opposing healthcare reform.

No one has put forth an argument that doesn't cut both ways.


You, Skip8282, haven't even put forward any semblance of an argument yet you continue to accuse me of failing to address this imaginary argument of yours.

Could you simply quote your argument, I can't find anything resembling a proper argument in your posts.

Seriously.



The Luke

Your arguments in general are completely off base.

Military/Teachers/Government workers receive healthcare that also covers their children.  This is part of the package.  The government employees provide a service and get compensated in return for that service.  Private sector also offers health insurance, also covers children, etc.

[The Luke]

Your arguments in general are completely off base.

Military/Teachers/Government workers receive healthcare that also covers their children.  This is part of the package.  The government employees provide a service and get compensated in return for that service.  Private sector also offers health insurance, also covers children, etc.

...you are missing MY point.

How do kids WITHOUT parents get such coverage?

Generalizations are a poor method of discussing complex issues.

Maybe try ANSWERING some of these questions? 

...and which healthcare coverage offering jobs would you recommend to an orphaned child?

...how do the handicapped get a healthcare coverage offering job?

...how do those born with a disease/condition ever beat the "pre-existing condition" exclusions?

...can single, childless soldiers donate their dependants coverage to some needy woman and her kids? (like Jeebus would)

grab an umbrella,

You need to re-read my previous posts in this thread, read them carefully and slowly. Then come back with a detailed critique and I'll attempt to answer each point.



The Luke

[grab an umbrella]

...you are missing MY point.

How do kids WITHOUT parents get such coverage?

Generalizations are a poor method of discussing complex issues.

Maybe try ANSWERING some of these questions? 

grab an umbrella,

You need to re-read my previous posts in this thread, read them carefully and slowly. Then come back with a detailed critique and I'll attempt to answer each point.



The Luke

I will answer them in the order you asked them.

1.  Orphans as you describe them can go to one of several places. 
a.  Live with a new family(get insurance from new parents)
b.  Group home.  Insurance provided.

2.  It's illegal to discriminate against handicapped in the process of hiring, and most desk jobs offer health insurance.  When  your employer has group insurance, denying from pre existing conditions is illegal.

3.  Read above question.  Get a job with group health insurance.  Or a lot of states have high risk insurance pools.  Or start your own business and become a group yourself, etc.

4.  Obviously no they cannot.

[Skip8282]

...eh, what argument would that be? You haven't proffered a cogent argument.


...this kind of defensiveness would seem to indicate that YOU are avoiding the issue. I merely pointed out the logical inconsistencies in the argument put forth by those opposing healthcare reform.

No one has put forth an argument that doesn't cut both ways.


You, Skip8282, haven't even put forward any semblance of an argument yet you continue to accuse me of failing to address this imaginary argument of yours.

Could you simply quote your argument, I can't find anything resembling a proper argument in your posts.

Seriously.



The Luke

You've been given the arguments.  Again, you just don't agree with them and you're not bright enough to make that distinction.

And again, why are you crying about something that has absolutely no effect on you?

[The Luke]

1.  Orphans as you describe them can go to one of several places. 
a.  Live with a new family(get insurance from new parents)
b.  Group home.  Insurance provided.

...isn't there a 17% chance the new parents won't have healthcare?

...isn't there a 21% chance that they will be denied coverage when they make a claim, even if they have health insurance?

2.  It's illegal to discriminate against handicapped in the process of hiring, and most desk jobs offer health insurance.  When  your employer has group insurance, denying from pre existing conditions is illegal.

...the military was proffered by many in this thread as the easiest route to taxpayer-funded government-run socialist healthcare coverage.

Guess which employer is exempted from the anti-discrimination provisions?

Remember, at the current rate at which employers are finagling their way around employee healthcare provisions (or just dropping them completely), by 2050 NO ONE except government workers and servicemen will have any employer provided healthcare at all.

Even if you get such coverage, 21% of the time you are paying your premiums in vain as you will be denied coverage when you claim.

3.  Read above question.  Get a job with group health insurance.  Or a lot of states have high risk insurance pools.  Or start your own business and become a group yourself, etc.

...and if you are unemployed? Like 19% of Americans currently? (www.shadowstats.com)

...what if you can't afford the premiums offered to your high-risk group?

...what if you get such coverage, but are one of the 21% who are denied coverage when they claim?


Dude, it's pretty obvious that you are too ill informed to have a respectable opinion. Maybe turn off the FOX News, do your own research and learn to think for yourself.

 
The Luke

[The Luke]

You've been given the arguments.  Again, you just don't agree with them and you're not bright enough to make that distinction.

And again, why are you crying about something that has absolutely no effect on you?

...that's a three line post, so I think everyone can see that you haven't quoted this argument you claim to have put forward, neither have you stated or re-stated such an argument.

Again, what is your argument? I can't be expected to answer arguments that haven't been made.



The Luke

[grab an umbrella]

...isn't there a 17% chance the new parents won't have healthcare?

...isn't there a 21% chance that they will be denied coverage when they make a claim, even if they have health insurance?

...the military was proffered by many in this thread as the easiest route to taxpayer-funded government-run socialist healthcare coverage.

Guess which employer is exempted from the anti-discrimination provisions?

Remember, at the current rate at which employers are finagling their way around employee healthcare provisions (or just dropping them completely), by 2050 NO ONE except government workers and servicemen will have any employer provided healthcare at all.

Even if you get such coverage, 21% of the time you are paying your premiums in vain as you will be denied coverage when you claim.

...and if you are unemployed? Like 19% of Americans currently? (www.shadowstats.com)

...what if you can't afford the premiums offered to your high-risk group?

...what if you get such coverage, but are one of the 21% who are denied coverage when they claim?


Dude, it's pretty obvious that you are too ill informed to have a respectable opinion. Maybe turn off the FOX News, do your own research and learn to think for yourself.

 
The Luke

Ahh, statistics.  Blindly quote them without any regard for the information behind them.  I love it.

[The Luke]

Ahh, statistics.  Blindly quote them without any regard for the information behind them.  I love it.

...at least use the "Lies, damn lies and statistics" quote.

I mean, if you're hoping to make a witty comment without any actual content or adding to the debate... why not try to seem classy.

Unless... unless of course you intended to elaborate?


The Luke

[Skip8282]

I don't know how much more simple this can be.

Remember the requirement: a valid argument why veterans/servicemen should be allowed to extend their taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare coverage to their children and dependants, which DOES NOT similarly make the case for other groups.

The Luke

We've been over this.  Healthcare, for the service men/women and their families, is provided as a benefit of their job, not as a right.  Just as if you worked for Lowe's, Dell, Microsoft, or whoever, you can get healthcare for your family.

Military service is not the prerequisite, having a job that offers health benefits is.  

And therein lies the problem, a lot of companies won't or can't provide it.  So, now we're back to whether or not it should be a fundamental human right and the government should get involved.

Then you simply go off into tangents about holes in our healthcare although you can't point to a single orphan in this country going without it.

If you want to discuss your OTHER arguments, I agree, there are too many people in our system who fall through the cracks.  Too many who are denied health coverage for pre-existing conditions and way, way too little has been done by our government to fix the problems.  It's one of the reasons I'm leaning towards a government run healthcare plan.

But, your comparison of one group has it so everyone should is just nonsense.

[grab an umbrella]

...at least use the "Lies, damn lies and statistics" quote.

I mean, if you're hoping to make a witty comment without any actual content or adding to the debate... why not try to seem classy.

Unless... unless of course you intended to elaborate?


The Luke

The stats you quoted may infact be true.  But you have to look at why certain things were denied.  Paperwork errors, procedures that weren't needed, etc. 

If you think that all that will magically be resolved by instituting nationalized healthcare, then I got some nice beachfront property in Arizona that I'm looking to sell.

[The Luke]

The stats you quoted may infact be true.  But you have to look at why certain things were denied.  Paperwork errors, procedures that weren't needed, etc. 

...and here I was thinking the HMOs were making just making exorbitant profits for providing no real tangible service to society.

You sound like a public relations (propaganda) spokesman for the health insurance industry.



The Luke

[The Luke]

Military service is not the prerequisite, having a job that offers health benefits is. 

...yeah, I read that. But it's hardly what I was asking for: a reason why certain people get free healthcare that doesn't equally apply to all those who don't.

Sorry, I thought you were being dismissive and evasive... seems you simply don't understand.



The Luke

[grab an umbrella]

...yeah, I read that. But it's hardly what I was asking for: a reason why certain people get free healthcare that doesn't equally apply to all those who don't.

Sorry, I thought you were being dismissive and evasive... seems you simply don't understand.



The Luke

ITS NOT FREE HEALTHCARE.

[The Luke]

ITS NOT FREE HEALTHCARE.

...I know, it's technically taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare.

But hey, that's what we Europeans mean when we say "free healthcare".



The Luke

[grab an umbrella]

...I know, it's technically taxpayer-funded government-run socialised healthcare.

But hey, that's what we Europeans mean when we say "free healthcare".



The Luke

In exchange for work, the military provides its employees and their families healthcare.