Let's debunk one of liberals' belief — healthcare should be a fundamental right

With freedom comes choices. Many choose to allocate their resources away from healthcare. I have news for you, everyone dies. Free people make choices for their own quality of life, britains just get moderation, poor treatment and eventual collapse. As America trends towards your system, we are showing signs of collapse. You had better hope we don't, because who will save you next time?

You have nothing to brag about.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/26/w...oo-little-too-late.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

Personally, I have no problem with providing necessary healthcare for those under 18. At 18, you are free to die like the soldeir that defend my freedoms. Why should they sacrifice for freedom when you will not?

Again, healthcare treated properly will force free people to prioritize properly. There are many avenues to healthcare other than federal socialism. States are welcome to use sin taxes, there are charities and the people choosing to allocate their resources more wisely.

 

With the worlds largest economy, who choses to spend more on military that the rest of the world combined.

The "we're too big argument. Your HC costs 3x what I pay, 3x!!!! Your insurance companies are killing you.

 

Except there ARE doctor shortages in countries with UHC:
Shortage of family doctors leaves health care in crisis (Great Britain)

Australia needs more doctors — but does it need more medical schools?

 

how is it liberals fault they have no tools ? surely its conservatives for gutting the public school system through lowering taxes, and what happens when that runs out and they still dont have a job that will happen with some people do they just starve ?

aw come Im not in the fbi Ill not tell anyone

you shouldnt have to though, you live in the richest country in the world look at your friends are treated surely thats not right they should be given a helping hand its not their fault detroit went bankrupt they didnt do that, and you shouldnt feel guilty you should feel guilty that they arent getting ahead not that you are thats what youre supposed to do

its not liberals its rich and poor, though I agree a lot could be done differently


ps - check this video out looks nice.....not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTQFtNLvcl8&feature=related

 

Okay - what you lot do not understand is that we lot who have UHC use the media as a "grippiest". Every time the government wants to ration the system we get onto the media and have a whinge

But the rural problem is real, what most do not realise is that it is a problem world wide

 

what you show there is britain needs more gp's, which is why we have been shipping them in from india for years, thats not news. we are not short of doctors as it says there just one particular type, which we are addressing.

australia is short of doctors for the bush, do you know anything about that place thats a lifestyle issue as you have 1 person for every 4 million square miles and 800 thousand sheep so most doctors dont want to work there

 

Fascinating comments, so far thoroughly devoid of historical example.

Are you going to provide any example of where people without free healthcare thus make better priorities in their lives and get generally better outcomes?

India perhaps? Brazil? The 50s or something? Id love to know where you get your ideas from apart from mere ideology.

 

awesome whereabouts in scotland are you ?

 

It is not the insurance companies, it is the regulations and accreditation.

The government should not give tax incentives(except to the individual) or over regulate insurance companies(which want these regulations in order to limit market forces). Employers should not be able to provide any compensations other than wages and HSA's. This would leave the individuals to shop for insurance. Most americans are forced to hand over their own wealth building funds into ponzi-schemes like SS/medicare and group insurance plans.

Accreditation forces higher costs which limit access. The governments attempt to eliminate the boogieman(shade tree providers) is causing more damage than good. Without accreditation, apprentice could learn and provide skills at far cheaper rates. Everyone in the free market is motivated to provide a good product at a reasonable price. The more regulations you put on an industry, the less available and higher the costs will be. Eliminating government accreditation would have the individuals shop for good providers(based on performance) as apposed to just trusting a piece of paper.

Even lower accreditation requirements would help provide more providers and more provision of healthcare, at lower costs.

 

I never said they did. I said they would be motivated to do so. Billions of people have lived on this earth without healthcare and everyone who has ever lived and died has died with or without it. Again, healthcare is a luxury you can choose to prioritize or not. It is a fact that products get better and cheaper in the free market, I do not have to prove this.

 

Right so you dont know if either people being motivated to make better priorities for themselves or actually doing so has ever happened.
Indeed healthcare is a luxury, as are public motorways, as are professional navies, air forces and armies, as are sewage systems. We can all and humanity has survived without any of these things for hundreds of thousands of years.

I think we can agree here. Lets get rid of all these things, and start from scratch.

 

If you have a right to anything that must be produced, then you have a right to part the life of another person.

Do you have a right to any part of the life of another person?

Notice that none of you are saying that you have a right to procure these things for yourself. You are saying that you have a right to the product with no mention of how it is provided. Healthcare, food, shelter, these things must be produced by someone. A right to them entails a right to cause someone to produce them for you.

Do you have a right to force others to produce for you?

 

no it doesnt, it just implies if you cant provide them for yourself the govt will as you have a right to them. do you have a right to force the army to defend you ? couldnt you procure your own army ?

 

The public schools systems are (or were before the city went bankrupt) well funded, but the teachers were afraid of the students and couldn't control the classrooms. We had riot gates, armed guards, the works.

It seems you're not getting the amount of money that has been thrown at this problem with the only effect being that the number of people on the welfare system grew. Why wouldn't it? If you're getting free stuff without working...why work? Poor people aren't stupid. If you make over $1400 a month you're cut off. So they made less and got an extra $800 a month in free crap.

I didn't say a total cut off, I said make it short term assistance and incentivise people to get off.

Street kids don't rat. Watch movies. That's the stuff people do.

It is Detroit's fault that it went bankrupt. You can stay on 100% assistance for 5 years.

You still do, though.

Not really. There are a lot of rich people that give back. Eminem is fabulously wealthy now and supports a lot of the successful charities in Detroit. He also gave his voice and time to the Chrysler 200 series if they would keep the plant in Michigan.

 

Fascinating, do you have a right to have the government protect your property? After all that takes productive effort also.

 

you disappoint me youre just repeating conservative lies imo, welfare numbers dont grow cause people love being on welfare, they grow cause people lose their jobs

I doubt the school system in detroit is remotely well funded but will take your word for it, if it is its the only well funded public school system in america, and that the teachers there face any different problems controlling students than anywhere else

those two things are unrelated, and of course it isnt detroits fault its not detroits fault the economy crashed and people couldnt afford to buy cars, its not detroits fault the companies were designing crap cars either

eminem yeah he's gonna support ending welfare Im sure since he grew up on it

 

...No.

 

okay, i am willing to accept that health insurance should not be a federal mandate but here's what i would also like to see happen:

All Americans who are irresponsible enough not to care about their health, DO NOT GO GET MEDICAL TREATMENT IN THE ER WHEN A NEGLECTED HEALTH PROBLEM OR AN EMERGENCY OCCURS UNLESS YOU CAN PAY FOR IT.

Hospitals should be able to exercise their own 'LIBERTIES' and TURN YOU AWAY and let you DIE in peace for your own IRRESPONSIBLE behaviour.

So if you can't afford the 100,000 surgery and treatment to get your life saved then stay home and die, DEAL? Sound good? Because hospital and taxpayers should not pick up the bill for your irresponsible and idiotic actions..

 

nah thats rubbish treat everyone free of charge for any ailment they have thats what a civilised society does

 

Another ignorant argument. So, if the US completely gave up its national defense structure it would have no worry of being attacked and ruled by another country? This would have worked well for Europe back during WWII.

Now, if it were to not establish national healthcare and eliminate its current social welfare system, it would still be prosperous and exist freely. Comparing healthcare to national defense is assinine.

 

no, that's rubbish. If you and I can afford health insurance but only i pay for it why should i pay for your health problems? So you have been saving yourself the $100-$300 a month health insurance premiums while i have been paying for it and then when you need the 200,000 surgery to get your life saved, hospitals and taxpayers pay for it? I don't think so.... BUY YOUR GOD DARN HEALTH INSURANCE. Health should not be a choice.... It's a RIGHT and personal responsibility!

Many of these same people who complain about health insurance, drive nice cars, have nice homes, take nice vacations but have no personal responsibility when it comes to health. They claim 'The hospital cannot refuse me' and surely expect expensive medical treatment in times of need, while others pick up the bill. Yeah, a vacation, a car are more important than their health?

These sickens me to be honest.... everyone should be personally responsible and get health insurance. Your health is the most important thing is life. If you can afford it and refuse to pay for it, then hospitals and taxpayers should not pick up the tab when you go to the ER, you should be turned away and allowed to die for your irresponsible behaviour.

So let me get this right, a mandate to get you to purchase your own insurance is an attack on liberties? Then what about when hosptals are FORCED to treat you when you can't even pay for it? Isn't this an attack on liberties too? you can't have it BOTH ways... If you can't be forced to buy your health insurance then hospitals cannot be forced to treat you, UNLESS YOU PAY FOR IT.

 

At the very least, health care should be treated like a public utility, with a guaranteed small profit for the providers.

 

Alot of good stuff in here from the Progrssives. Libertarians irrational as usual.

 

get a proper civilised humane system where neither of us needs insurance, problem solved.