Single-payer health care plan dies in Senate

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Healthcare for many is an act of of Mercy and Compassion before one of profit, I'd say the R might be capitalized because it is perhaps a Divine Right. I personally prefer the term Human Right. Yep we are all entitled to and people with more may ought to want to give to those with less because of another another Human value, Charity. Why? Community- and that's who pays for it, everytime, anyway. We all do. I guess we could turn away from community, have no charity and forget we are merciful and compassionate. We could suck like that, but I choose not to.

So those with more should give to (or provide for) those with less? Sounds great to me. I've been without a steady job for two years now and I would love it if some of you would start paying my bills for me. I'll be happy to PM the address for you to send the checks to. (decides not to hold breath while waiting).

While your suggestions sound good on paper, historically, they haven't worked out so well in reality. "Mandatory" charity isn't charity - it's socialism. And, with few exceptions, socialism hasn't worked very well in practice.

As for medical care, please tell me which part of the American population can not receive medical treatment; the supposed 45 million that are uninsured? They can go into the nearest ER and be treated for whatever needs they have. And, while it doesn't cost them anything, the care they received is not really "free"; it is subsidized by the rest of us.

It isn't an perfect system, to be sure. But considering the fact that approx. 15 million of those uninsured aren't even citizens of this country, the fact they can still receive medical treatment for their ailments or injuries is a pretty good deal.

[Chewbacca]

Cerek you have put words and meaning into my post which is not there in order to rant on about socialism.

Which I guess it's all that can be done to fight powerful ideals like Mercy, Compassion, Community and Charity- make them out to be bad, bad commie ideas.

Using words like entitlement and socialism to frame the issue so supporters of universal coverage look like stalinst or moasist is not a new tactic, is easily exposed, and even easier to reject.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Cerek you have put words and meaning into my post which is not there in order to rant on about socialism. Which I guess it's all that can be done to fight powerful ideals like Mercy, Compassion, Community and Charity- make them out to be bad, bad commie ideas.

As opposed to your implication that any who disagree with universal healthcare are completely lacking these ideals? LOL. Be careful that you don't get a nosebleed while standing on your pedestal, Chewie.

Mercy, Compassion and Charity were never part of communism, nor did I suggest they were. I merely pointed out socialism has historically proven to be a very poor form of government that did not take care of the masses the way it was supposed to.

As for the right to have medical care, I also pointed out that even those who are not citizens of our country can receive medical treatment, regardless of insurance or ability to pay. That is a fact that cannot be denied.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Using words like entitlement and socialism to frame the issue so supporters of universal coverage look like stalinst or moasist is not a new tactic, is easily exposed, and even easier to reject.

Almost as easy as using a red herring argument to dismiss the notion that universal coverage is a socialistic approach.

Your own words say "people with more ought to want to give to those with less". You're correct that concept is "charity" when the people with more have a choice about helping those with less. When it is suggested this giving should be mandatory, it is no longer a choice and, ergo, no longer "charity".

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I know more than you. I have lived in Ireland, England, France, Belgium and the US. Where have you lived? I am glad your wife got treated without insurance within a day. Is that supposed to be unique to the US? I also worked and can still work if I choose to, in the medical field. Think, before you speak.

Now, now, there shall not be any irrational or narcissistic claims here. This is US health care plans being discussed, not one's personal "I wish I could list". We all know what happens when a certain fellow gets on their personal soapbox. Oops, I'm typing like a certain progressive liberal moderator known to these parts!

Anyhow, here in the US we do expect that to happen, can you?

[Chewbacca]

Your own words say "people with more ought to want to give to those with less".

These are not my words, but now I see you are looking to play the old gotcha game, rather than have serious discussion. You cannot even quote exactly what I wrote, in the haste to "get me" and for certain you have not contemplated my words in the haste to paint me a socialist. Your posts are failed.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Felix The Assassin Now, now, there shall not be any irrational or narcissistic claims here. This is US health care plans being discussed, not one's personal "I wish I could list". We all know what happens when a certain fellow gets on their personal soapbox. Oops, I'm typing like a certain progressive liberal moderator known to these parts! Anyhow, here in the US we do expect that to happen, can you?

You're right, I shoulda went with something more simple like "STFU" or "GTFO".

Still, he hasn't been back since .

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca These are not my words, but now I see you are looking to play the old gotcha game, rather than have serious discussion. You cannot even quote exactly what I wrote, in the haste to "get me" and for certain you have not contemplated my words in the haste to paint me a socialist. Your posts are failed.

My apologies. Here are your exact words:

"Yep we are all entitled to and people with more may ought to want to give to those with less because of another another Human value, Charity."

That was a little difficult to fully understand (I'm not sure if you meant "to" or "too"), so I shortened it to...

"people with more ought to want to give to those with less".

Looking at them side-by-side (so to speak), I still don't see any significant difference between the two statements.

As for claiming those with more should want to give to those with less, some do and some don't. In America, each person has the choice to give (or not) as they see fit. But claiming those that do not give to charity also do not have mercy or compassion is a false argument. The three ideals are not intrinsically linked.

As for the arguments (or complaints) about being labeled a "socialist", only you can decide if that is a good thing or bad thing. I never stated socialism was bad or evil or wrong. I just pointed out that it hasn't worked out very well when actually put into practice, except for a few exceptions.

Universal healthcare is a socialistic concept. Now, whether that makes it a "bad" thing or a "good" thing (or neither) is up to each individual to decide. I've stated before that I do not oppose a universal healthcare system, I just don't think any system proposed by our government would work as they claim it will. And the current bill before the Senate bears this out. It will do nothing to address actual costs of healthcare and it seeks to attack the insurance industry rather than the healthcare industry. Again, that isn't necessarily a "bad thing", but if that's the case, it should be called the "insurance reform" bill instead of the healthcare bill.

And if the government wants to increase competition with private insurance carriers, it could do so by lifting state regulations.

The bottom line is that our government will use national (or universal) healthcare as a power grab - one that will be used by all future administrations as well as this one. Think about it. Would you really have wanted GWB and Cheney determining what type of healthcare you get?

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Cerek Serious snip job... Again, that isn't necessarily a "bad thing", but if that's the case, it should be called the "insurance reform" bill instead of the healthcare bill.

Yo, that's my line...

[Chewbacca]

Reform my ass. From what I gather it's more like the fearmongerific power-grab Cerek was talking about, but instead of Darth Cheney it's the Insurance industry and instead of part of a unrealistic rant, it's real. Coming soon to a President's desk near you....

No new cap on profits, new tax breaks, every citizen is a mandatory customer, I'd call that ****ing fabulous! (if I were an insurance executive)

[SpiritWarrior]

Well, now that the SP option is gone, yeah, it could be called insurance reform, technically. I think they were using "healthcare" as a term to represent caring for our citizens, as opposed to the way doctors treat and care for their patients.

I am quite happy with the insurance changes, after reading them. Go through it if any of you get a chance, it's hard to believe they got away with these practices up until now. There is still a long way to go, don't think. But wow, just reading the scams they pull on people, and also experiencing them first-hand for many years, just makes me like this bill alot more.

On a different note, I am also very happy about this law preventing banks from charging overdraft fees anymore. Thank god. That was a scam in itself, where your online bank would deceive you into thinking you had more cash than you did, then point you to the small print saying it takes 1 week to update. I once went $200 overdraft in fees alone simply because I was led to believe I had $40 left when I had nothing. The fees are $30 a pop, so if you bought lets say, a pack of gum for 60c, then you'd pay $30. When you imagine yourself buying multiple small things during the day (lunch, drinks, etc.) you can see how quickly this can become a problem.