No. of Recommendations: 50
The Republicans are monstrous not because their leadership, but because of their rank and file legislatures. The Republican health care plan is wicked.

Wicked is defined to be morally bad, something that brings sorrow, remorse or distress.

In the United States today, the cost of health care is around $10,000 per person [1]. The median household income is $51,939. If you have a family of four, the amount left over to live on comes to $11,939. Thus, you can see that healthcare is simply not affordable for a normal family. This isn’t expensive liposuction, but the cost of necessary cancer treatments, diagnostics, and asthma medicine.

These aren’t lazy, undeserving slobs who need healthcare. They are the hard working underpinning of our entire modern civilization. Obamacare brought affordability and access to healthcare to many through underwriting the cost. Let’s not hedge about it. The Democrats worked to save the lives of those who could not afford healthcare by underwriting it with resources from the affluent.

Healthcare is not affordable to individuals, because the majority of the money doesn’t flow to the workers, it flows to a few individuals, and to capital holders. There is plenty of money for healthcare, but it isn’t going to those who need to pay for it. Half of all income goes to the top 10% of earners. [3]

You must choose, and there is no way out of the choice:
Choose to let people die because of lack of access to healthcare in a society which has plenty of resources to pay for it
Choose to let people live by allocating resources currently going to the very wealthy towards health care for others

There is no way out of this choice. Look at the numbers above again a few times. Healthcare is not affordable to the median household. It is completely out of reach for the poor. This is a choice that is made every time legislatures create or execute a law on healthcare.

The Republican plan moves directly to again block healthcare to those that are not of the affluent class.

The Republicans consistently choose choice A, the choice to let people die. This is an outrageous choice. It is wicked by definition, because it is morally bad, and something that brings sorrow, remorse and distress.

There is no way to avoid the choice. Do you decide to let people live or die? What do you choose?

Are you Republican or Democrat?









[1] https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...

[2] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/acs/acsbr15...

[3] http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
On this board we agree with you completely.

The problem is that upper middle class no longer cares, as they've got theirs. The goobers are too dumb to know who is screwing them.

You know who is going to WVa to talk to people? Sanders! He's not even a Democrat. The Democratic leadership is a freakin' joke.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
People are responsible for their own health care. The only bad government is one that gets in the way of people being able to provide for themselves the care they need.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 54
SP

You are lacking in understanding. Do you think you can cover the cost of your e.g. Heart valve replacement on your own? Oh, you've got insurance so other people are going to pay for it. I see. Others can pay for you but you won't pay for others. I get it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
No. of Recommendations: 0

People are responsible for their own health care. The only bad government is one that gets in the way of people being able to provide for themselves the care they need.


Except women. Women cannot be allowed to be responsible for their healthcare. GOPgovernment can get in their way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<People are responsible for their own health care. The only bad government is one that gets in the way of people being able to provide for themselves the care they need.

Except women. Women cannot be allowed to be responsible for their healthcare. GOPgovernment can get in their way.>>


I'm agreeable to women and men buying their own birth control equipment, should they desire it.

Abortion of course, is quite a different matter.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<<SP

You are lacking in understanding. Do you think you can cover the cost of your e.g. Heart valve replacement on your own? Oh, you've got insurance so other people are going to pay for it. I see. Others can pay for you but you won't pay for others. I get it. >>



Look around the world and through world history. On how many occasions has the government cared a fig about whether you were healthy or ill?


If you want to have health care when you might want it or need it, YOU had better take steps to insure that you will get it.


If you want to rely on the government for that, you take pot luck, at best.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm agreeable to women and men buying their own birth control equipment, should they desire it.

Abortion of course, is quite a different matter.


Abortion's just ex post facto birth control. What's your problem with it? At what point in the process from conception to birth does it become something special?

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you want to have health care when you might want it or need it, YOU had better take steps to insure that you will get it.

I'd like to think of health care as a basic right, to be handed out to all people living in our country. The only step that ought to have to be taken is to live here.

What steps do you think ought to be required? There are many problems you might have that you couldn't pay for. Should you just be abandoned by the side of the road to die? If not, what steps can you possibly take that would avoid this in all eventualities?

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Look around the world and through world history. On how many occasions has the government cared a fig about whether you were healthy or ill?

Educated or illiterate and innumerate.
Treated fairly under the law, or unjustly.
Represented in a democratic govt, or subject to a dictator's whims.
Breathing clean air, drinking clean water, eating safe foods, using safe drugs and devices, or left to choke and sicken.
Working in safe conditions, or left to the tender mercies of employers to suffer injury and illness.
Provided a safety net available to all, or left to starve and sicken in homelessness.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I see that swillwater's doppels are on the march! Or is someone else involved in such shenanigans now?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
> Look around the world and through world history. On how many occasions has the government cared a fig about whether you were healthy or ill?


Assuming this is not a rhetorical question.

Let me introduce you to a concept: Universal Health Care

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

The first move towards a national health insurance system was launched in Germany in 1883, with the Sickness Insurance Law. Industrial employers were mandated to provide injury and illness insurance for their low-wage workers, and the system was funded and administered by employees and employers through "sick funds", which were drawn from deductions in workers' wages and from employers' contributions.

The above was mandated by the government. Although it was paid for by the employer.

In New Zealand, a universal health care system was created in a series of steps, from 1939 to 1941.[7][8] In Australia, the state of Queensland introduced a free public hospital system in the 1940s.

Now this is not free, as in magically no one ever has to pay for it. It is free as in the person who comes in for care does not directly pay for the service.

There is a lot more reading you can do on this, now that you know the terms to search I am sure you will find the answer to your question.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<I'd like to think of health care as a basic right, to be handed out to all people living in our country. >>


Of course, here's where we disagree.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Look around the world and through world history. On how many occasions has the government cared a fig about whether you were healthy or ill?

I am fairly certain that the regulation drugs and patent medicines came about because government cared if they made you better or made you worse.

I'm also pretty sure all that talk about "smog" was because it was making people ill, not just because it ruined the views in downtown areas.

And I'm positive the whole "tobacco causes cancer" legislation was due to the fact that people, and through their elected representatives, came to realize that "health" was an issue, and that the freeeee market wasn't going to do anything about it. So warning labels on packaging was one step (that's "government") followed by higher taxes (also "government"). I'm also thinking the whole "labels on food, including ingredients, calories, etc." came about for health reasons, and not because manufacturers, in some magical swoop of beneficence, decided that consumers should have more information about, you know, "health."

And, as has already been mentioned upthread, you might want to do a little reading on the history of universal health care. Apparently you have done none, yet feel empowered to make such ridiculous statements as are quoted in italics at the top of this post.

PS: Many vaccines like HIV and otherswere developed with government research, and many more, including polio, smallpox, measles, diptheria, rubella and others were folded in under government programs when the earliest versions were found to be contaminated, or caused more harm than good. Ever heard of the Center For Disease Control? That's "government", and it's entirely about "health."

If You Take Prescription Medications, Thank a Taxpayer.

That’s the take-away from an article being published in Thursday’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the role of “public-sector research institutions” – think universities, hospitals, nonprofits and federal labs like the National Institutes of Health – in drug development.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/10/news/la-heb-drug-dev...

Yeah. Government doesn't care at all, apparently.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, when push comes to shove, government benefits will be among the first thinsg to go. China, Russia and the United States have demonstrated that quite clearly.

Those German health care benefits evaporated during and after WWII.

What happened to all those company pension plans people relied upon in the 1960s?


Lots of people prefer sticking someone else for things they want --- employers, government or whatever. That might work for a while, but don't count on it lasting very long.

Only fools depend on someone else to take care of them.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
GH: Ever heard of the Center For Disease Control?

Do you mean the Centers For Disease Control? ;) The Repugs have this in their sights. Along with almost every other government program, of course.

CNC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
> Only fools depend on someone else to take care of them.


When you are capable of taking care of yourself, yes.

But you are unable to imagine anyone who is not rich, except for those who were too lazy to 'just work hard enough'

whatever.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<GH: Ever heard of the Center For Disease Control?

Do you mean the Centers For Disease Control? ;) The Repugs have this in their sights. Along with almost every other government program, of course.

CNC >>


Sounds like a good item for the French to take over.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<GH: Ever heard of the Center For Disease Control?

Do you mean the Centers For Disease Control? ;) The Repugs have this in their sights. Along with almost every other government program, of course.

CNC >>


Sounds like a good item for the French to take over.


Again... is a weird response and makes no sense. Are you OK?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<<GH: Ever heard of the Center For Disease Control?

Do you mean the Centers For Disease Control? ;) The Repugs have this in their sights. Along with almost every other government program, of course.

CNC >>


Sounds like a good item for the French to take over.

Again... is a weird response and makes no sense. Are you OK? >>



Are YOU OK?


Were the United States to shut off funding for the CDC, it seems plausible to me that another country might step up to continue that service. France seems like a plausible candidate.



Seems to make sense as an off the wall suggestion to me.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top