if you believe health care is a civil right you should then......

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by beth115, Sep 16, 2015.

  1. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right then why the hell does everyone come to the US when they want the best care in the world? why did the Canadian PM (I think it was Harper) come to the US for treatment?

    Look you don't need to be a world renown scientist to read flipping books..... Sorry if I'm more read and more educated than you but hey your ignorance is your own fault - it's your fault for not knowing this stuff...

    BTW, all you're doing is regurgitating progressive talking points. Do you think you're the first person to make that argument verbatim? lol. It's almost as if you guys consult a progressive handbook for your arguments because you all say the same damn thing. It's goofy.
     
  2. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think you have read more books than me. Well that is funny. But no matter. Did you read where I said we have the best system in the world if you are rich and famous. Do you know that in Canada, the U.K., Cuba....etc. there is no term medical bankruptcy. It is the major cause of bankruptcy in our country though. But I am sure you read that in one of your books....lol
     
  3. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you know in the United States doctors HAVE TO treat you regardless of your financial position?

    Also do you even know why medial costs in the United States are so high? tort that's why. Flipping greedy people that will file frivolous lawsuits, that and all these moron gangbangers that shoot one another up and then go to the hospital where they get 1.5 million dollars in care to save their lives.

    Man, I just had this discussion last weekend with a medical professional...

    Oh you better believe I have read more books than you... I've read at least 1,000 non-fiction books in my life - I'm a flipping bookworm.
     
  4. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you know doctors are not required to treat hypertension without regard to ability to pay? They are required to treat stroke though. Same for high cholesterol. They are required to treat heart attacks though. I offer you a quote from good will hunting....it's not that you don't read books....you just don't read the right books. Lol
     
  5. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's because hypertension can be treated with aspirin lol, because that's what the doctor will recommend.
     
  6. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have hypertension and high cholesterol and I assure you it is not treated with aspirin. Aspirin? That is barbaric. Even those that take low dose aspirin take lisinopril or some other medication. Look you lost this one. Our system sucks.....unless you are rich (which by the way I happen to be)
     
  7. Abandon

    Abandon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Sorry, but what? What does the total of a country's population have to do with the number of infant deaths that occur within a limited populace of people?
     
  8. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you kidding me? doctors recommend aspirin for hypertension.... Yeah my dad is pretty well to do himself and he has excellent health care and he has hypertension and you know what? his doctor recommends aspirin.

    What do you want Warfarin? lol yeah good luck with that - you get a paper cut on that stuff and you will bleed to death.
     
  9. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's called the law of averages.

    Like I said flip a coin 300,000,000 times and then flip a coin 15,000,000 times there will be a drastic differential between heads and tails...

    It means because more babies are being born in the US the law of averages suggests the infant mortality rate will be higher just because of volume - that's what it means..

    More babies being born = more chances that a baby will die.
     
  10. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for the medical advice. To suggest chronic conditions can be treated with Otc meds is really ridiculous....don't you agree? Motrin for diabetes? What do you prescribe for cancer (also not treated without regard to ability to pay)

    - - - Updated - - -

    That is not how infant mortality works. Are you familiar with statistical percentages? You are joking....right?
     
  11. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's exactly how infant mortality works, that's how everything that is produced works.. The more you make the more defects you will have on average...

    The mortality rate will be higher when you have more births - that is just a fact. More babies = more complications.
     
  12. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No sir not as a per capita percentage which is how the WHO does it. I only gave you one outcome measure. There are many more. I guess they are all wrong......according to your books. Lol
     
  13. MrNick

    MrNick Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    9,234
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Per capita doesn't work because per capita gives you geographical data.... You can bet certain areas have different infant mortality rates....

    Besides, you cant get any per capita data from Cuba anyways - you cant get any data from Cuba period. Cuba doesn't report statistics and when they do it's all propaganda just like every communist nation....

    I don't even see the point in comparing the US to Cuba because it's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing useless. What do you think communist governments are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing honest?
     
  14. Heinrich

    Heinrich Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You do not understand statistics.
     
  15. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Per capita has nothing to do with geographical data. Pick the UK or Canada if you prefer....unless you think it is all part of a grand conspiracy. LOL
     
  16. Abandon

    Abandon Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Actually, the ‘law of averages’ is a layman's term for an (erroneous) belief that the frequencies of events with the same likelihood of occurrence even out, given enough trials or instances. It is a misunderstanding of the law of large numbers and is sometimes referred to as the gambler’s fallacy.

    Your logic has no statistical basis and it is not based on an actual law.
     
  17. cummingsfranck

    cummingsfranck Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
  18. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's an excellent question.
    Probably the best answer to that question would be a resounding YES.
    And the reason WHY, would be that the U.S. Constitution represents a basic law of how our government should work including the responsibilities to both the people and the States. For it to be applied fairly and equally, there should be little, if any, room at all for it to be interpreted but simply be understood by all to mean the same thing. Supreme Court Justices should not be given leeway to redefine the words to fit an agenda Left or Right, but only to determine if the cases brought to it have violated the Constitution in some way requiring a corrective/remunerative action be taken by one or both/all parties involved.

    Change from the original interpretation should be the result of an amendment process clearly and concisely worded, NOT as a result of reinterpretation of the original words to fit a later acquired bias/agenda of those currently elected/appointed.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017
  19. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Being poor shouldn't be a death sentence when it comes to major medical issues. Period.
     
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about when the life could be saved but it would be excessively expensive to do so? Would that still be a right then?
    As technology continues to advance, life-saving (and life-prolonging) medical techniques are becoming more of just a matter of money. We can make a 100 year old live to 110 if we're willing to spend a million dollars.

    Obviously if money is spent on public health, there has to be some sort of rationing. We'd have to decide where the money is really worth it and how it can be most effectively spent.

    Patients with chronic and expensive ongoing health problems will probably be cut loose, so the money can be used to better help other people. Also older people who require expensive medical treatment but may not have that much longer to live anyway even if the treatment is successful.

    Obviously when we're talking about $1,000 per life saved, that's entering into very different territory than other cases where it's $500,000 to save someone's life.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
  21. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would you feel that way if it were you or a loved one?
     
  22. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    11,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, but we could spend half the government budget on healthcare and it still wouldn't be "enough".

    And besides, I don't even see how we can be having a discussion about the more excessively expensive healthcare treatments being a "civil right" when there are still homeless people on the streets. It probably only would take $5000 a year to get a homeless person off the streets. Why should we be dumping 100 homeless people out in the cold to pay for one heart transplant for a 62-year old?

    Look, if it's preventative treatment, if it doesn't cost too much and it's going to end up saving a lot of money later on, I don't have a problem with it. I just want value for my money, if you're going to spend it.
    I don't want the government pumping money into a 400-pound person who can't stop eating.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
  23. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have a civil right to not be denied health care which you or another by their own free choice are willing and able to pay for, or have purchased insurance in which such care is covered. Obtaining health care is no different than buying groceries; you have a civil right to buy any food items you can afford and are willing to pay for.
    The only time government might have a legitimate cause to become involved would be to protect society as a whole from the spread of a highly contagious disease.
     
  24. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And if you cannot afford to pay for your groceries, who foots the bill?? The government that's who. :)
     
  25. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, it's working net taxpayers who foot that bill, government is simply the middleman.
     
    Polydectes and gamewell45 like this.

Share This Page