Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pat on September 19, 2011 at 10:13am

I wish I could remember who stated this, but it is a sentiment that seems to fit.  They're incredibly concerned with the rights of the unborn or pre-born, and incredibly concerned with what happens to a deceased person's property.  It's the in between part they don't give a shit about.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on September 19, 2011 at 9:05pm

Are the pre-born people who were born before they leave the uterus?   Is this like the material that birds chew then regurgitate to feed their young is predigested?  I suppose next we'll be calling children "post-fetuses".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LarryL on September 19, 2011 at 1:17pm

<sarcasm> Yea, but why should I have to pay for the woman who had her leg run over!   Why didn't she take INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY and keep her damn leg out of the way of the car.  What right does the GOVT have to take MY Money at Gunpoint to pay for the stupid woman and her damn leg.  Where is THAT written in the Constitution! </sarcasm>

 

sorry, but I just get sick of the greed and selfishness of our society, regardless of whether they believe in fairy tales or not. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Dick on September 19, 2011 at 8:24pm

It's not just that it "has its benefits".  Compared to a more private system like we have in the US, universal health care is amazing.  The costs are vastly lower.  The care is much more friendly.  If you get sick, you don't ever have to worry about finding the money: you just go!

 

Right now, due to the price explosion of health care due to the private health care system in the US, the US government itself pays about as much per person for health care as other developed nations.  Just imagine: if we only made Medicare universal, we would be able to support the same standard of care we enjoy today, without the overbearing medical insurance premiums!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on September 19, 2011 at 8:07pm

OK.  So here's an interesting hypothetical, except it's not a hypothetical.  It's real.  Family's house burns to the ground, and are left with nothing.  This, being their second house, after the spring flood of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys of 2011 wiped out their first home.  Reason for the fire?  Grandpa, who's on oxygen and in a medical bed, was smoking at 1:00 a.m. and started the fire.  House burned to the ground. Members of the family were flown to Vanderbilt University Hospital in Nashville, TN.  Let's work on the theory that the family had no insurance (and living near Reidland, KY, that's a relatively safe assumption). Who pays?  Is it justifiable to ask taxpayers to foot the bill for someone who, in all probability, was on medicare or medicaid (or both), and in direct violation of medical advice, was filling his probably damaged lungs with tobacco smoke, with a lit cigarette, in the presence of pure oxygen?  Or, even under these circumstances, is it immoral to refuse to pay for the $100K plus burn treatments for him and his family at one of the best medical facilities in the mid-south?

Curious to see what everyone's opinion is.

 

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Fire-victims-were-flood-surviv...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on September 19, 2011 at 9:07pm

Really, if someone is smoking while on oxygen, we should just cancel the entire nation's health insurance.  Then take him out and shoot him.  Then shoot his family.  Then bill the rest of the country for the cost of the bullet.  Then cancel the health insurance of everyone who has ever smoked, ridden a motorcycle, gotten fat, had sex without a condom, drank more than 2 drinks per day, crossed the street without looking, or used a power tool without safety glasses.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on September 19, 2011 at 9:12pm

Whoa Sentient!!!!  Back the truck up.  I didn't say I agree with not paying.  I said I was curious about opinions on this, having seen various and differing opinions on this thread. Don't shoot the messenger!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on September 19, 2011 at 9:28pm

I only said shoot him and his family.  Just my opinion.  Are you that guy?  Shame on you!  Dont smoke in bed while on oxygen, dammit!  Not to mention they probably had a meth lab in the basement, and were making bootleg liquor in the garage.

 

In a nation  of 300 million people or whatever, there are going to be stupid people.  After all, how many voted for Dubya?  When examples of incredible carelessness and stupidity are rolled out, it's so easy to say "that stupid careless fuck!  We are wasting our health care dollars on him!".   And judge him.  

 

Cigarettes are as addictive for some people as heroin.   The tobacco companies have made every attempt under the sun to keep addicting the young and old.  When I was in the Army, from day one the drill sargent wold tell us "smoke if you got em" when in formation at ease.  They were tax free and subsidized in the commissary.  I quit 30 years ago, but I'm a stubborn guy.  We should check to see if grampa was a vet - maybe we owe our freedom to him.  Maybe he's a bootlegger and incest practitioner and the house was a meth lab.  We know nothing about him.  

 

We should take the shareholders of tobacco companies out and shoot them too.  Certainly the guy's family isn't at fault for grampa smoking, except they might have bought him his Marlboros.  And maybe set up the meth lab, if there was one.  That's usually the cause of rural house fires.  

 

We should also do the same with Purdue Pharma executives, who were shown to have marketed oxycontin as almost as safe as baby shampoo, when in reality it's as bad as heroin and there are more deaths annually from prescription drugs than from auto accidents.  They made, literally, billions from that drug.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on September 20, 2011 at 6:50am

No, I'm not the guy.  But I know what you mean about the military subsidizing smoking.  Not only tax free, but we got them for free in out C-rat boxes.  Along with the cold lima beans and ham.  If I'm ever forced to eat that again, you have my permission to shoot me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becca on September 19, 2011 at 9:22pm

Oh... that was a good laugh! And pretty much how I feel the reasoning goes with people who don't support universal healthcare.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by annet on September 19, 2011 at 8:49pm

The Stonekettle guy is awesome.  He describes really well why we revere people who risk their lives for others, the motorcycle story is perfect. 

 

That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.   Kim Stanley Robinson, "Green Mars" p318

oh snap!

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LarryL on September 19, 2011 at 9:37pm

too bad this type of language just doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

"The libertarians, including Ron Paul, who make up the stony bitter heart of the Tea Party beat the drum of personal responsibility and wave the bloody red flag of individual liberty, but at their core they are cowards.  It takes courage to place duty, honor, and the welfare of society above yourself. It takes courage, moral courage, to place the welfare of others before your own selfish desires.  It takes courage to do the right thing even when it may cost you personally, even when nobody is watching.  All the charity and pro bono work in the world doesn’t change that, courage is what you do when it matters.

There is no honor, no morality, no courage in letting a man die because he can’t pay – even if he came to such straights by his own device or his own choice. "

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page