Is health care a right or a privelege?

Like I said, personal responsibility is history.

It's possible for those with low incomes to receive up to $45,000 per year in government benefits. I'm 55 now and I've worked hard my whole life. But if I had to do it all over again, I'd just party every day and collect my government checks.

 

I bet you do.

 

Sure, the CDC is important to defend us from bioweapons.

 

Yes, and I think that was changed.

 

A personal example of the high costs of medical care today...I recently visited the emergency room...they did the usual lab tests and conducted a cat scan which took about 5 mins.

Fortunately I have health insurance...the bill was a little over 10,000 dollars....of which I personally only had to pay $75.00.

Now would a person with no insurance who managed to get to the e.r. have been given the same care...I highly doubt they would have got the cat scan.

 

Why?

 

Is not too late. Those benefits are available to anyone

 

I retire in 7 years when I'm 62. I'll take Social Security, the first government benefit of any kind I've ever received. I'll get my paltry $1,500 per month.

If Social Security was privatized and I would have invested all that money I've paid into the system for 40 years, I'd probably receive $10,000 per month.

 

From someone that doesn't understand what rights are your post is pretty rich.

 

One of the functions of the CDC is to recognize a biological attack....the hospitals would be required to treat such outbreaks of the infectious organism.

But the point being...in such a case or scenario....the immediate threat to our National Security is apparant....though it is a matter of health.

Everyone would want the government in the case of a biological attack to do everything possible to stop the epidemic irregardless of the cost...yet many,many people want to ignore the fact that by having no adequate health care system we are endangering the health and well being of everyone...sick people, diseased people with contagious diseases come into contact everyday with healthy people with their children....is anyone really happy with this?

Now everyday health concerns and diseases are not of the seriousness and immediacy of a biological attack...but the long term results of poor health care or no health care ultimately do have a very strong affect on our national security.

Does any sane person want to live in a community teeming with sick and diseased people When you go to a concert or a movie or some other place tightly packed with people and soneone near you starts coughing...what do you think? Are you concerned? Is there a possibility this person may be transmitting some infectious bacteria or virus? again....not rocket science but we see many on here refusing to face up to the truth of the health care problem.

 

No you would not receive 10,000 a month. You would also not have had disability insurance for all these years

 

I know you don't understand rights....no need to keep proving it

 

Or nothing. As many have found out, all it takes is one bad stock pick, one shady investment banker, one failed real estate project. Social Security was meant to be a backstop to a volatile market - not a main source of retirement income. It was also
meant as a way to cycle older workers out of the workforce so younger ones can move up the income ladder. Unfortunately, the crash of '08 put retirement off for many, and younger workers have had to take lower paying jobs.

 

You understand that has no relevance to this thread, or my post right?

 

No, I quite clearly pointed out I am talking about demonstrable reality.

 

Which would make you a lech on society.

 

Nothing stopped you from investing your entire working life. If you didn't, that's your own fault.

 

I should have the money I paid to Social Security available to me.

 

But if everyone else is already doing it, what can't I?

 

Return on investment vs SS starting in 1969 would yield approx 4 to 5 times more.

 

Health care is not a matter of semantics.

Advanced nations, and all democracies with a Christian ethos, accept the moral responsibility of providing medical care to all those in need.

The paradigm, as demonstrated multiple times, is to do so via the most efficient and economical means. That means that everyone is covered.

Pretending that you can exclude tens of millions from coverage when ethics and law dictate they all be treated just means dumping their bills on the taxpayer, an incredibly inefficient and costly alternative.

Dump the ideological dogma, and go with the pragmatic, proven approach. If for no other reason than it's cheaper.

Otherwise, be honest enough to admit that you support having fellow Americans denied care and be allowed to suffer and die.

 

You will, when you reach 62.

 

Not everyone else is doing it. And nothing is stopping you from leaching.

 

At a return rate of 0.4% ... a small fraction what I could have received on my own with that money.

 

Pure speculation.

And the rate of return for SS is over 4%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-miller-socialsecurity-idUSBRE89H0YG20121018

If righties didn't make **** up, they'd have nothing at all to say.