Free Universal Healthcare

Originally posted by Marxman
Again with the hostility. I'm sorry if I believe in giving back to one's community. If one has the means to help others they should. Yet most people with lots of money think exactly like you do. "I earned my money so I should be able to spend it all on myself." Yes, you have that option but you also have a moral obligation to the greater goodof humanity to give back.

Are you selfish enough to not care about the welfare of others or can you look past your constant struggle to purchase your own iPhone in order to ensure all people can enjoy good health?
I could have a field day with that statement but I don't want to turn this into a Capitalist Pigs vs Communist Liberators thread. I'd rather it keep on topic.

I'm going to have to agree with Bardock's assassment of your inteligence...

Plus I'm going to add hypocrite in there, what with the "capitalist pigs, and "bloodsuckers" comments and your objections to his hostility.

offtopic

Originally posted by Marxman
offtopic

Originally posted by Creshosk
Way to reinforce your hypocricy there champ.

I don't even recall you making an opinion. All you added to this conversation is an experience with a bug bite and how much of a Bardock fan you are. So add something constructive or gtfo.

Originally posted by Marxman
I have yet to directly say anything negative about anyone in this thread while I've been called scum and my intelligence has been insulted. But I'm the hypocrit. Either agree or disagree with me then say why or why not. How about we leave the personal jabs out of it, ok?

I don't even recall you making an opinion. All you added to this conversation is an experience with a bug bite and how much of a Bardock fan you are. So add something constructive or gtfo.

Hypocrite.

Originally posted by Marxman
But are we really pitting cost against cost here? This way of thinking is like putting a value on a human life, which I'm not prepared to do. Are you? Do we value some over others? Maybe physical capabilities or metal capacity? Sounds like a slippery slope.

The value of human life is subjective, the cost of human life is not. If you wish to prove that Health care should be done to create a better society, then prove it using economics anything else is quite irrelevant in the big picture.

My point is not to focus on that. There will always be those trying to take advantage of a good thing. Yet why should the fear of that make us pass up the opportunity to bring in a program that would only help the greater good of our country.

They will be the largest group though, most people that work can afford insurance, make it mandatory and everybody with a job will have it. Universal health care will then only provide to those that can't afford it. In general those people are also the people that will never get back into a functioning society again, meaning it costs a shit load of money. of course there are exceptions but they are rare.

............good point. 😛

What else did you expect? 😛

The objective of taxing the rich is not to "level the playing field" but rather have those that can afford it to assist. The tax would be no where near enough to bleed them dry. These are people with networths of $100,000,000+. These are people that have lots of money and make lots more of it everyday. No way will these people even notice a difference in their living. Maybe except the won't be able to buy that $5000 pair of underwear.

That's not the point is it? They worked hard for their money (at least often) and deserve it, taxing them will make them lose that money. Now a normal tax is not bad, it's not even that bad to tax them more then others but to just keep increasing their tax levels will only serve to push them out of the country or to make it less beneficial to be rich. And if they want a 5000 dollar pair of underwear then they should be able to damn well buy it. Either increase taxes everywhere or don't. It's entirely unfair that a few people should pay for the rest of the country.

It wouldn't be huge. Its a 1 to 2% increase. Obviously the more it costs the more of an addition it would be but if people are working instead of being sick they've got the money to afford it.

Point.

You think healthcare is a good idea yet you don't think quality of life would increase if it was available to all? I'm sorry but I don't understand.

I think there is absolutely no economical reason to allow universal health care, it's a decision based on the charity of the majority of the population. If a democracy wants it then it should happen. But no government would ever force a system like this through for economical reasons.

I could have a field day with that statement but I don't want to turn this into a Capitalist Pigs vs Communist Liberators thread. I'd rather it keep on topic.

Well we all know Communism can't possibly work, so it would just be a waste of time.

Originally posted by Marxman
Again with the hostility. I'm sorry if I believe in giving back to one's community. If one has the means to help others they should. Yet most people with lots of money think exactly like you do. "I earned my money so I should be able to spend it all on myself." Yes, you have that option but you also have a moral obligation to the greater goodof humanity to give back.

Are you selfish enough to not care about the welfare of others or can you look past your constant struggle to purchase your own iPhone in order to ensure all people can enjoy good health?

Are you so selfish that you want to steal the hard earned money of the people that actually make it possible for you to live as good as you can? You call the very people that popularized cars, computers, electricity, etc. and make them available for most everybody bloodsuckers and pigs. What the **** has socialist scum ever done for a country except for stealing money that isn't theirs to give it to people that didn't deserve it?

Sorry, I don't have any compassion for incapable idiots that are not able to get a job. Socialist ideas are shit when they just come down to "we have to help the poor" ... because we really don't have to. You can't just steal people's money without giving anything back to them. And since almost everyone could get a better and cheaper care privately it's just not fair to let them pay for worse service, because some people are unable to produce anything of any value.

And what annoyed me the most with your statement is, that if you already do something as stupid as your health care plan at least let everyone share an equal load. Rich people are not less healthy, rich people don't even have the need for national health care, why the hell should they pay 5% more? Because they were capable of making money? It's so odd, by making money they already did a great service to the country, in more than one way and now communist pigs want them to give even more? By what ****ing right. You think any of those long term unemployed people could achieve what they have?

I said in the beginning those that do nothing for society don't deserve to even be in it. Therefore they shouldn't be getting healthcare.

However I think you're wrong about one thing Fishy. The large majority of people using the universal healthcare would be the people that have jobs that don't pay enough. The people that do the jobs you don't want to do. They keep your lawns and hedges nice and tidy, they serve your food, they clean your cars, they help you find that shirt you really want, they build your houses. Basic level construction workers get paid MAYBE 30 grand per year. 80% of Walmart's employees are part-time workers that get no extra benefits, which leaves them without health care.

And I'm not going to defend my communist ideals. This thread is about universal health care and nothing more.

And who said anything about a 5% increase Bardock? An increase in their tax would be unnoticeable. But regardless I see that not many people here like that idea. That doesn't change anything about universal healthcare.

Originally posted by Marxman
I said in the beginning those that do nothing for society don't deserve to even be in it. Therefore they shouldn't be getting healthcare.

However I think you're wrong about one thing Fishy. The large majority of people using the universal healthcare would be the people that have jobs that don't pay enough. The people that do the jobs you don't want to do. They keep your lawns and hedges nice and tidy, they serve your food, they clean your cars, they help you find that shirt you really want, they build your houses. Basic level construction workers get paid MAYBE 30 grand per year. 80% of Walmart's employees are part-time workers that get no extra benefits, which leaves them without health care.

And I'm not going to defend my communist ideals. This thread is about universal health care and nothing more.

And who said anything about a 5% increase Bardock? An increase in their tax would be unnoticeable. But regardless I see that not many people here like that idea. That doesn't change anything about universal healthcare.

Then change the minimal wages. Make health care insurance mandatory, if necessary give government assistance to those who can't afford it. If company's can get away with paying their employees to little money to even make them able to have a life then those company's should be handled and those company's should be forced to pay them extra. Minimum wages are out there to ensure that everybody has the minimal amount of money required to food on the table under a roof and if necessary medical care. And if the government refuses to do anything make the workers go out and have a revolution. Revolutions got us minimum wages in the first place.

And btw you were the one that said a 5% tax increase for the rich.

Originally posted by Fishy
Then change the minimal wages. Make health care insurance mandatory, if necessary give government assistance to those who can't afford it. If company's can get away with paying their employees to little money to even make them able to have a life then those company's should be handled and those company's should be forced to pay them extra.

Originally posted by Fishy
Minimum wages are out there to ensure that everybody has the minimal amount of money required to food on the table under a roof and if necessary medical care.

Originally posted by Fishy
And if the government refuses to do anything make the workers go out and have a revolution. Revolutions got us minimum wages in the first place.

Originally posted by Fishy
And btw you were the one that said a 5% tax increase for the rich.

Originally posted by Marxman

EDIT: Oh no I had said the 5% of our population that is crazy wealthy.

Yes, I misread that too. Still. Why the rich more?

Originally posted by Marxman
I've been saying that about Walmart for years. I'm not in a position to make a difference in that matter yet except for the petition I signed to keep them from building one in my area.

It's my understanding that Walmart creates more jobs then it destroys, so why try to keep it out? Besides keeping it out is not really the way to go. It serves no purpose except for destroy the marketing position of your town and the economical gain of everybody with a job.

One needs much more than simply food and shelter to survive. Running water, electricity, gas - not only for the house but the car used to get to a job(or even bus money if you want to stretch it). Minimum wage is, if I may paraphrase Karl Marx, is the bare necessity of life to keep the worker working.

Well give them that then.

Be careful. You're sounding like a communist.

Even communists are bound to get things right every now and then. If workers can't get what they need from a job they need to demand more. Now a company can get more workers easily so they will fire them and leave them on the street, this hurts the economy. If there are to few workers to do jobs that require no real training or education then immigrants are the easiest way to go. Unfortunately that creates a lot of unfortunate downsides and of course economical problems. So raising minimal wages a bit is more beneficial to the country.

Ummm. I don't think I did.
EDIT: Oh no I had said the 5% of our population that is crazy wealthy.

My bad

Originally posted by Fishy
Then change the minimal wages. Make health care insurance mandatory, if necessary give government assistance to those who can't afford it.

Like a health tax?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Like a health tax?

I don't see why you would need new taxes for it... But in essence yes, it's a hell of a lot cheaper then Universal Health care, and has some other benefits as well.

Of course religious zealots who don't believe in insurances would still be ****ed, but letting them die is basically proving Darwin right so no biggie.

Originally posted by Fishy
I don't see why you would need new taxes for it... But in essence yes, it's a hell of a lot cheaper then Universal Health care, and has some other benefits as well.

Of course religious zealots who don't believe in insurances would still be ****ed, but letting them die is basically proving Darwin right so no biggie.

Oh.

I can see how a health tax is better than a health...tax.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Oh.

I can see how a health tax is better than a health...tax.

Hahaha.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Oh.

I can see how a health tax is better than a health...tax.

It's cheaper then universal health care, still allows for competition which makes the health care in the US better then that in most other country's, and you could probably get enough money from the defense department without hurting the US military or weakening it to a level close to that of China...

So no new taxes, just taking money from one place and putting it somewhere else where it can be more useful.

Originally posted by Fishy
It's cheaper then universal health care, still allows for competition which makes the health care in the US better then that in most other country's, and you could probably get enough money from the defense department without hurting the US military or weakening it to a level close to that of China...

So no new taxes, just taking money from one place and putting it somewhere else where it can be more useful.

It's not necessarily cheaper though. If we are going to posit fantasy scenarios then there is no reason to assume that UHC need be inefficient.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's not necessarily cheaper though. If we are going to posit fantasy scenarios then there is no reason to assume that UHC need be inefficient.

Utopian none UHC beats utopian UHC.