[bomber101581]

Well, what do you think? I will add my opinion a little later, right now i gotta go drop the kids off at the pool. :tongue2:

 

[godlessdustin]

I piked the last one. I might change my mind.

 

[bomber101581]

I piked the last one. I might change my mind.

i'm tempted to agree with you

 

[godlessdustin]

Even if things get go okay for people for a minute as long as profit is involved in peoples healthcare it will go bad in some way or another. This Applies to all things not just halth care. There will be greedy people ruin it for everybody.

 

[devilsjackpot]

Same goes for socialsim/communism. Their is always some asshole that's gonna throw a wrench into the works.

 

[godlessdustin]

Yeah and democracy/fascism.

 

[.45acp]

I voted make the buttholes get a job.

I'm all for helping a person if through no fault of their own things have gone wrong.

I'm also dead set aginst the bums that play and milk the system.

 

[bomber101581]

I voted make the buttholes get a job.

I'm all for helping a person if through no fault of their own things have gone wrong.

I'm also dead set aginst the bums that play and milk the system.

without loads and loads of buearacracy, how do make the distinction?

 

[HiPoint45]

I like the private charity selection, nothings perfect but that seems to strip some buearacracy away. More hands on I guess in assessing the need. And I always like people having the choice to help rather than being forced to..one statistic that will change if all these new programs are passed..I think you will find we quickly lose the distinction of being the most charitable nation. I know it will for me..some months I'm flush with cash and can spread some around to causes/charities I deem worthy...some months not so much.

 

[bomber101581]

the private charity selection..... seems to strip some buearacracy away. More hands on I guess in assessing the need.

yes, i totally agree

And I always like people having the choice to help rather than being forced to

of course, but do enough people in this country feel that way to support those who cannot provide for themselves?

in the richest country in the world, i just don't see how we can accept that there are those who do not get the healthcare they need for want of the money. its immoral.

 

[HiPoint45]

of course, but do enough people in this country feel that way to support those who cannot provide for themselves?

in the richest country in the world, i just don't see how we can accept that there are those who do not get the healthcare they need for want of the money. its immoral.

I will disagree a tad here, even in countries with so called universal healthcare or single payer system or whatever you want to call it...people don't always get the healthcare they "need", if they did expalin why mortality rates are higher for prostate or breast cancer in canada or england compared to the US?

 

[bomber101581]

of course, but do enough people in this country feel that way to support those who cannot provide for themselves?

in the richest country in the world, i just don't see how we can accept that there are those who do not get the healthcare they need for want of the money. its immoral.

I will disagree a tad here, even in countries with so called universal healthcare or single payer system or whatever you want to call it...people don't always get the healthcare they "need", if they did expalin why mortality rates are higher for prostate or breast cancer in canada or england compared to the US?

bigger boobs and nads?

 

[bomber101581]

i wanna know who the other two people who voted for option 5 are.

 

[Rhodes]

Dont agree with any of the options and will offer my own. We have several problems that are creating this mess lets deal with them all.

If a person is healthy enough to work then they will be put to work and given the opportunity to pay into an insurance program just like every one else. We have tons of infrastructure projects that need doing time to kill both birds.

If the person though infirmity is unable to work then they would be treated as any civil society and given the necessities until they no longer need the help.

If a person refuses to work then let em starve. If they don't belong here send them back. If they illegally harm another person or cheat the state put them to work until they pay back to the victim or state an amount deemed suitable to the court up to and including forfeiture of their entire life, all funds must be from this work and not personal fortunes. If proven they are too dangerous to work then the penalty is a speedy death.

Will that solve 100% of the problem? We dont know its never really been tried. Its time to end this entitlement disaster and restore some dignity.

 

[bomber101581]

Dont agree with any of the options and will offer my own. We have several problems that are creating this mess lets deal with them all.

If a person is healthy enough to work then they will be put to work and given the opportunity to pay into an insurance program just like every one else. We have tons of infrastructure projects that need doing time to kill both birds.

If the person though infirmity is unable to work then they would be treated as any civil society and given the necessities until they no longer need the help.

If a person refuses to work then let em starve. If they don't belong here send them back. If they illegally harm another person or cheat the state put them to work until they pay back to the victim or state an amount deemed suitable to the court up to and including forfeiture of their entire life, all funds must be from this work and not personal fortunes. If proven they are too dangerous to work then the penalty is a speedy death.

Will that solve 100% of the problem? We dont know its never really been tried. Its time to end this entitlement disaster and restore some dignity.

if you can boil that down to one sentence, i will add it to the poll

 

[sirdarksoul]

Both sides are missing the obvious answer in the debate which is HOW to implement national health care rather than whether to do so. In the 1970s oil was discovered in Norway's territorial waters. Instead of allowing corporate interests to run their oil industry, they nationalized it. Oil pays for their health care and education. As a result Norway enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. According to the Human Development Index for 2008 Norway ranked second, while the US ranked fifteenth.

I believe we should nationalize oil, coal and natural gas as well as essential utilities such as electricity and water. No longer would our money be going to greedy corproations and their investors, but to support health care and education. I know some of you will scream socialism but take a look at the following links and see how we rank against so-called "socialist" western nations in Human Development, Education, and Quality of Life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

 

[HiPoint45]

I believe we should nationalize oil, coal and natural gas as well as essential utilities such as electricity and water. No longer would our money be going to greedy corproations and their investors, but to support health care and education. I know some of you will scream socialism but take a look at the following links and see how we rank against so-called "socialist" western nations in Human Development, Education, and Quality of Life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index

So we should become socialists and turn our industries into govt owned entities to move up an average of 0.35 on these so called scales? My quality of life is fine thanks I don't want to live in Spain or Ireland or (shudder) France. As far as being 15th those places on that scale are separated by 0.18 hardly a blip someone has to be first, looking at the list I'm quite happy at 15th. So you purpose we just steal all the companies invested money and equipment for the greater good hmmm? Well I will scream socialism at that. How do you think things get accomplished by govt fiat? No it takes capital, risk taking and so on. I believe what you term as "greedy corporations" have propelled much of our development or do you think the pc you're typing on would have been developed faster if MicroFed was in charge of it? Also using your wikipedia lists I notice the country who stole our countries investment in their oil...Venezuela, heavily "nationalized" ,is 59th on the quality of life index. Thanks but no thanks, stealing from people isn't a way to implement anything in this country whether it be stealing my hard earned money in unfair taxes or stealing legitimate businesses by nationalization.

 

[msoldano52]

I pick this one
- Every person ( legal and illegal) will receive treatment at any hospital at any time and cannot be declined service due to status or ability to pay. So, why then are we talking about health CARE? We have that. Health INSURANCE is a luxury that you can choose to have or not! (even if you do not have a job). Health insurance is a form of gambling. a premium is paid according to the risk of the investment. High risk of getting sick then you have a high premium, low risk, lower payment or you can choose to not "play" in this insurance game and if something happens... you pay out of pocket... by the way, medical debt is non-intrest and most times ANY payment will make them happy ( I had 10k medical debit and payed $20 per month. Payed it off a couple years later, i had all other bills paid so i payed the balance....) truth is we have the best medical process in the world!

 

[Rhodes]

Dont agree with any of the options and will offer my own. We have several problems that are creating this mess lets deal with them all.

If a person is healthy enough to work then they will be put to work and given the opportunity to pay into an insurance program just like every one else. We have tons of infrastructure projects that need doing time to kill both birds.

If the person though infirmity is unable to work then they would be treated as any civil society and given the necessities until they no longer need the help.

If a person refuses to work then let em starve. If they don't belong here send them back. If they illegally harm another person or cheat the state put them to work until they pay back to the victim or state an amount deemed suitable to the court up to and including forfeiture of their entire life, all funds must be from this work and not personal fortunes. If proven they are too dangerous to work then the penalty is a speedy death.

Will that solve 100% of the problem? We dont know its never really been tried. Its time to end this entitlement disaster and restore some dignity.

if you can boil that down to one sentence, i will add it to the poll

Hehe remove all but the last period. If as it seems there must be some reform in health care then it must focus on personal responsibility.
So call it a Common Sense approach, benefits are paid for by the recipient. All I suggest is giving the poor the ability though hard work to pay their own way. This will instill dignity and result in fewer poor, not though government handouts but by their own hand.

We must remind ourselves that in this country those that are rich are so due to hard work and personal dedication while those that are poor are so due to negligence. The exception is of course the infirm and that must remain the only exception or it will bloat.

What the socialists suggest will in the end destroy the world's last hope of a free civilization. How easy they find it their hearts to do so, this makes them and their ideals the enemy of our liberty and must be treated as such or they will succeed.

 

[bomber101581]

Hehe remove all but the last period. If as it seems there must be some reform in health care then it must focus on personal responsibility.
So call it a Common Sense approach, benefits are paid for by the recipient. All I suggest is giving the poor the ability though hard work to pay their own way. This will instill dignity and result in fewer poor, not though government handouts but by their own hand.

i hate to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like govt subsidized health care for the poor. unless you are asking the insurance companies to voluntarily lower their prices so that the poor can afford it to. sorry, that just aint gonna happen. they are in this business to make money, and you don't make money by selling your product for less than it costs you to make it.

a lot of poor people work hard and still cannot afford healthcare (i was one of them for awhile). so the only way your model would work is to lower the cost artificially, translation 'gov't subsidy'.

and you can't just eliminate all poverty through 'hard work'. As jesus christ himself said, "the poor you will always have with you"