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

[HeyYou]

The question is not whose fault it is. It's why her misfortune should be paid for by others against their will.

 

 

In a way, we are all paying for it. If she goes in without insurance, she will go into the emergency room and the state will pay for it.

 

Or the hospital will have to eat the charges, raise prices that insurance companies pay, then everyone else's insurance premiums go up. So, you get to pay for it directly, via taxes, or indirectly, via your insurance premium. Only way to avoid it? Don't have insurance, and pay your own hospital bills, or let everyone else (via the state) pay them for you.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

Of course you can. Not sure what you're asking here. Why do I think it's OK to pay for public police and not public health care?

Police are for keeping public order in public spaces... and more importantly are run by localities. You can start another thread of if you want to talk about federal police :thumbsup:

If you are trying to somehow equate my body with some kind of state highway... well, the implications are pretty horrifying I think you'll agree.

 

If you honestly can't see how paying cops for law enforcement is different from the forced redistribution of wealth that a universal health care system requires..I guess I honestly don't know what else to tell you.

You pay taxes so cops can protect you and others. You pay taxes so you and others will not die. Its really that simple.

 

 

 

Of course you can. Not sure what you're asking here. Why do I think it's OK to pay for public police and not public health care?

Police are for keeping public order in public spaces... and more importantly are run by localities. You can start another thread of if you want to talk about federal police :thumbsup:

If you are trying to somehow equate my body with some kind of state highway... well, the implications are pretty horrifying I think you'll agree.

 

If you honestly can't see how paying cops for law enforcement is different from the forced redistribution of wealth that a universal health care system requires..I guess I honestly don't know what else to tell you.

 

Actually the comparison between police and UHC is quite valid, if you take into account that those that can't afford health insurance could easily spread nasty diseases all around without health care.

 

It is quite INvalid.

When cops are hired, I get something for my money. Response to calls, a more orderly society, etc. I think it could be done differently,but that is another subject for another thread.

What do I get for my money when Aunt Nelly gets that new liver she can't afford on her own?

 

Also, how does a UHC system force redistribution of wealth? I have heard that said other places as well, but I have not seen solid, factual basis for that argument.

Are you serious? That's what this whole thread has been about- taking money from those who have it and spending it on those who don't.

[pseudobio]

I agree in principle to each of us being responsible for our own actions, but, as a person born with a disability, that health insurance in this hypothetical simply is not available to me to buy, so even though I can pay for it on my income at my 56 hour a week job, the insurance companies simply will not insure me. Given I might be that man in the hypothetical, and given I have no access to insurance, even when I am willing to pay for it, are you going to consider me irresponsible for not buying insurance that is not available to me, and let me die? If your dollar is more important to you than my life, then you have a twisted sense of right and wrong. If any of you had no insurance, even if you decided to not pay for it, I would still be obligated by my moral and ethical codes to help every one of you live. To me, it is the ultimate cruelty to consider one person's life less valuable than another person's life. Furthermore, allowing someone to die, through intentional neglect, is denying that person their civil liberties; for without life, the other civil liberties are of no use.

[kvnchrist]

Of course you can. Not sure what you're asking here. Why do I think it's OK to pay for public police and not public health care?

Police are for keeping public order in public spaces... and more importantly are run by localities. You can start another thread of if you want to talk about federal police :thumbsup:

If you are trying to somehow equate my body with some kind of state highway... well, the implications are pretty horrifying I think you'll agree.

 

If you honestly can't see how paying cops for law enforcement is different from the forced redistribution of wealth that a universal health care system requires..I guess I honestly don't know what else to tell you.

You pay taxes so cops can protect you and others. You pay taxes so you and others will not die. Its really that simple.

 

 

 

Of course you can. Not sure what you're asking here. Why do I think it's OK to pay for public police and not public health care?

Police are for keeping public order in public spaces... and more importantly are run by localities. You can start another thread of if you want to talk about federal police :thumbsup:

If you are trying to somehow equate my body with some kind of state highway... well, the implications are pretty horrifying I think you'll agree.

 

If you honestly can't see how paying cops for law enforcement is different from the forced redistribution of wealth that a universal health care system requires..I guess I honestly don't know what else to tell you.

 

Actually the comparison between police and UHC is quite valid, if you take into account that those that can't afford health insurance could easily spread nasty diseases all around without health care.

 

It is quite INvalid.

When cops are hired, I get something for my money. Response to calls, a more orderly society, etc. I think it could be done differently,but that is another subject for another thread.

What do I get for my money when Aunt Nelly gets that new liver she can't afford on her own?

 

Also, how does a UHC system force redistribution of wealth? I have heard that said other places as well, but I have not seen solid, factual basis for that argument.

Are you serious? That's what this whole thread has been about- taking money from those who have it and spending it on those who don't.

 

 

It never fails to boggle my mind when those that have jobs and are setting pretty right now, are incapable of contemplating a day when they aren't. The economy out there should bring that possibility to mind. You could just as easily be the next person on the chopping block and a few months after your health care expires, You might be the one needing a transplant,

[Quetzlsacatanango]

I'm saying that your misfortune doesn't give you the right to other peoples' money.

I mentioned charity in my very first post in this thread, and that's exactly who should help you with your issues if you can't afford to deal with them on your own.

[HeyYou]

I'm saying that your misfortune doesn't give you the right to other peoples' money.

I mentioned charity in my very first post in this thread, and that's exactly who should help you with your issues if you can't afford to deal with them on your own.

 

Ah, so, if the government does things that causes your job to go away, they have no responsibility to lend a helping hand?

 

Someone with a disability that they had no choice in having, and cannot get insurance because of it, are out of luck as well? (as in one of the previous examples)

 

A natural disaster comes along, and wipes out few small towns, those that don't have health insurance should just be left to die?

 

And you don't want your tax dollars paying for someone else's health care, yet, your tax dollars go for someone else's health care in a foreign country? A country that we blow stuff up, (which your tax dollars pay for) and then we start rebuilding? (which your tax dollars ALSO pay for....)

Edited September 19, 2011 by HeyYou

[pseudobio]

I'm saying that your misfortune doesn't give you the right to other peoples' money.

I mentioned charity in my very first post in this thread, and that's exactly who should help you with your issues if you can't afford to deal with them on your own.

 

 

But that is the point! I can afford the insurance, but I am being denied access to it. If I were provided access to that insurance, even at triple the rate you pay for the same insurance, then I wouldn't need your charity, would I? By the insurance companies denying me access to health insurance, they shift the burden to the public sector.......and you.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

 

It never fails to boggle my mind when those that have jobs and are setting pretty right now, are incapable of contemplating a day when they aren't. The economy out there should bring that possibility to mind. You could just as easily be the next person on the chopping block and a few months after your health care expires, You might be the one needing a transplant,

That is the preparation I spoke of in my very first post. If and when the day comes that I need help that I can't afford I certainly won't expect you or someone else who has prepared better than I to pick up the bill.

 

 

I'm saying that your misfortune doesn't give you the right to other peoples' money.

I mentioned charity in my very first post in this thread, and that's exactly who should help you with your issues if you can't afford to deal with them on your own.

 

Ah, so, if the government does things that causes your job to go away, they have no responsibility to lend a helping hand?

No, I do not. I may choose to help out of the goodness of my heart, but I do not have a responsibility to you. It's not my fault you are dependent on the government for your livelihood.

Someone with a disability that they had no choice in having, and cannot get insurance because of it, are out of luck as well? (as in one of the previous examples)

 

A natural disaster comes along, and wipes out few small towns, those that don't have health insurance should just be left to die?

Charity, charity, charity, can't say it enough times.

 

And you don't want your tax dollars paying for someone else's health care, yet, your tax dollars go for someone else's health care in a foreign country? A country that we blow stuff up, (which your tax dollars pay for) and then we start rebuilding? (which your tax dollars ALSO pay for....)

Totally different issue.

 

I'm saying that your misfortune doesn't give you the right to other peoples' money.

I mentioned charity in my very first post in this thread, and that's exactly who should help you with your issues if you can't afford to deal with them on your own.

 

 

But that is the point! I can afford the insurance, but I am being denied access to it. If I were provided access to that insurance, even at triple the rate you pay for the same insurance, then I wouldn't need your charity, would I? By the insurance companies denying me access to health insurance, they shift the burden to the public sector.......and you.

Also a different issue. Nothing you have said explains why I should be forced to pay for your hospital bill.

[HeyYou]

It never fails to boggle my mind when those that have jobs and are setting pretty right now, are incapable of contemplating a day when they aren't. The economy out there should bring that possibility to mind. You could just as easily be the next person on the chopping block and a few months after your health care expires, You might be the one needing a transplant,

That is the preparation I spoke of in my very first post. If and when the day comes that I need help that I can't afford I certainly won't expect you or someone else who has prepared better than I to pick up the bill.

 

 

I'm saying that your misfortune doesn't give you the right to other peoples' money.

I mentioned charity in my very first post in this thread, and that's exactly who should help you with your issues if you can't afford to deal with them on your own.

 

Ah, so, if the government does things that causes your job to go away, they have no responsibility to lend a helping hand?

No, I do not. I may choose to help out of the goodness of my heart, but I do not have a responsibility to you. It's not my fault you are dependent on the government for your livelihood.

Someone with a disability that they had no choice in having, and cannot get insurance because of it, are out of luck as well? (as in one of the previous examples)

 

A natural disaster comes along, and wipes out few small towns, those that don't have health insurance should just be left to die?

Charity, charity, charity, can't say it enough times.

 

And you don't want your tax dollars paying for someone else's health care, yet, your tax dollars go for someone else's health care in a foreign country? A country that we blow stuff up, (which your tax dollars pay for) and then we start rebuilding? (which your tax dollars ALSO pay for....)

Totally different issue.

 

I'm saying that your misfortune doesn't give you the right to other peoples' money.

I mentioned charity in my very first post in this thread, and that's exactly who should help you with your issues if you can't afford to deal with them on your own.

 

 

But that is the point! I can afford the insurance, but I am being denied access to it. If I were provided access to that insurance, even at triple the rate you pay for the same insurance, then I wouldn't need your charity, would I? By the insurance companies denying me access to health insurance, they shift the burden to the public sector.......and you.

Also a different issue. Nothing you have said explains why I should be forced to pay for your hospital bill.

 

Name one charity, or, even a collection of them that would have been able to afford Hurricane Katrina. Or a selection of others for that matter.

 

The government does things that make PRIVATE sector jobs go away. They have been doing so for better than a decade. How is that my fault?

 

You have issues helping your own countrymen with your tax dollars, but, you don't seem to have too much of an issue killing other folks countrymen with your tax dollars, or rebuilding the cities that we blew up, or a host of other things that government does with "your money"...... And those don't even remotely resemble 'redistribution of wealth', they are 'squandering wealth'.

 

And what about subsidies for oil companies? Giving 'your' money to those who need it LEAST?

 

Or agri-subsidies?

 

Or power company subsidies?

 

Or Green Energy subsidies?

 

You don't mind your money being given away to people that really don't need it, or live in some other country, but, you would leave your own countrymen to die?

[draconix]

@ HeyYou

 

I hate to break it to you dude, but Katrina wasn't handled by FEMA at all. I guess this isn't quite off topic, since FEMA is kind of like a universal disaster insurance for those who choose to live in areas at risk of natural disasters. But as for a single charity that could have helped, that's a tall order. Of course there is the National Guard that would have been able to assist, (not a charity, but better than FEMA.) I forget the exact number of new trailers that were donated, a pretty large number, that were completely refused because they didn't meet some arbitrary FEMA standards. That organization gets in the way of help getting to disaster victims, and they're also broke. Additionally, asking for one charity that could have fixed Katrina is an unrealistic thing to ask for. It would be several charities, several churches, several volunteers from several nearby communities that would be a part of the massive effort.The real question that should be asked is why we think that the government should be charged with the task of taming mother nature so that we can live in high risk areas?

Also, who's to say what Quetz does or does not care about where his money goes. This isn't a debate about subsidies or our terrible foreign policy, this is a debate about UHC.

Edited September 19, 2011 by draconix