Should people without health insurance, etc. be allowed to die?

[Utyran]

That's why you buy off as many as you can. That way, you can get your pet legislation passed. There is a reason we have lobbyists that are paid 5 or more figures a year.

There is no point in buying them off of because they can not influence the economy by any law! Dont you get that in your head? They can't do it as they can't fly on giant Butterflies. Thats Capitalism.

 

Go ahead and keep outsourcing your jobs to china, and producing cheap products (in every sense of the word) and soon, you won't HAVE any customers. They will all be unemployed, and don't want your cheap products.

I'am getting bored by socialist thinking.

Hey kid, i hate china because i hate communits. They would grab my bussiness and maybee send me to Laogai. But for you, everyone which is interessted in profit is an exploiter and capitalist and such thing. So don't bore me with your lefti micheal moore type of wannabee do-gooder.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Utyran

[kvnchrist]

Right, because if we let people choose to pay taxes or not the government would run just fine...

 

 

Yea, It would run just fine. everybody in government would run out and get a real job, because the governments income is mostly in taxes. :biggrin: Hum, maybe he has a point there. lol

[Ragnarok162]

As someone who lives in England, and is as such under the care of the NHS, I am extremely grateful. Almost everyone must pay taxes during their life, would you rather not these taxes go into helping the citizens? Is America, and in their own respect, all countries not a Government of the people, by the people, for the people?

100 years ago, David Lloyd George introduced the Liberal Reforms, Britain at the time was in crisis. The government had finally that not only is it their responsibility to take from their populace, but also to shelter them. The creation of the NHS, was, in my opinion, one of the most significant events in British history. It is out moral obligation to care for our comrades in life, as humans that is our duty.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

I think my sig is the best answer that.

[PowderdToastMan]

Taking your money from you to provide you with a free service is a big fancy trick. It removes the profit motive, as well as removes the citizens sense of being fiscally prudent with their service. I gave this example already: Milton Freidman once said than no one spends someone elses money as carefully as he spends his own. If you have food insurance, you would get lobster and steak at the grocery store. That is the reason for socialized medicines eventual collapse. But to say the problem is the expense to everyone and the solution is more of the thing that caused the problem.

 

I believe it was quetzl who said you cant see the forest thru the trees.

 

Here take it from Oleg Athbashian, a former soviet citizen. He tells tales from this fallacy of re-distrobution

 

From here:

http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/video-the-current-truth-about-socialism-and-the-unions-t6828.html

 

[HeyYou]

Removing the profit motive wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing.

[marharth]

Removing the profit motive wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing.

I agree. If you have a profit motive you end up not caring about your patients or people you are insuring, you just want their money.

[PowderdToastMan]

Removing the profit motive wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing.

 

Removing the profit motive causes the service provider to not care about providing you with a service that is superior to anothers so that they keep you business rather than go to someone else. It is the very thing that causes depleted quality of service and its eventual collapse. when you are paid regardless of your quality, there is no incentive to make it the best as possible

 

Oleg talks about that and even gives an example he experienced in ussr in video

[HeyYou]

Removing the profit motive wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing.

 

Removing the profit motive causes the service provider to not care about providing you with a service that is superior to anothers so that they keep you business rather than go to someone else. It is the very thing that causes depleted quality of service and its eventual collapse. when you are paid regardless of your quality, there is no incentive to make it the best as possible

 

Oleg talks about that and even gives an example he experienced in ussr in video

 

I don't consider a nation that collapsed of its own weight as a "good example".... they spent too much money on the military, that the whole mindset there was different after decades of communism.

 

Here in the states, if you don't provide good service, you lose your job. (unless, of course, you are in a union.... then you just get transferred.....) There are several nations with UHC, and the system works. It may not be 'the best', but, currently, a fair few of them are head and shoulders above the US system......

[marharth]

Removing the profit motive wouldn't necessarily be such a bad thing.

 

Removing the profit motive causes the service provider to not care about providing you with a service that is superior to anothers so that they keep you business rather than go to someone else. It is the very thing that causes depleted quality of service and its eventual collapse. when you are paid regardless of your quality, there is no incentive to make it the best as possible

 

Oleg talks about that and even gives an example he experienced in ussr in video

Competition doesn't matter. The largest companies in the world that do not have to worry about competition still screw over the people they should be insuring.

 

The profit motive makes the companies want to make money and not care about your service.