The hate for Obama

JohnMc1

LostinKildare wrote: »

Oh c'mon. You deny that the poor and sick exist in order to dodge the moral obligation to help them. That's low.

Congrats on completely missing the point. The "Poor" and the "sick" aren't being denied anything under the current health scheme. Most of them are uninsured because they don't want to to be insured. You can't force somebody to sign for health insurance. If they don't want it they don't want it.

Its like the old saying of "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink it."

ChocolateSauce

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The small portion of the US population that is uninsured are that way because they want to. They would rather spend their money HD TVs, PS3s and other ridiculous stuff. Obama's Govt run healthcare plan is not going to change that.

Do you seriously believe this? Seriously?

If so, it's shocking, and is closer to a religious belief than to a legitimate opinion which has some evidence to back it up.

In a country with very little social welfare and unemployment close to the 30 million mark, I think it is fair to assume that some people at least haven't got enough money to buy much of anything.

You just hate poor people, unfortunate people, and anyone who might dare to ask their human family for some help.

LostinKildare

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Congrats on completely missing the point. The "Poor" and the "sick" aren't being denied anything under the current health scheme. Most of them are uninsured because they don't want to to be insured.

No, I get your point.

Sure, there are some people who have access to good, affordable insurance and choose not to avail of it. Nobody's forcing them to. But to suggest that those people make up the entirety, or even majority, of the uninsured in the U.S. is gross, gross denial. You put the words poor and sick into scare quotes as if to imply that these groups don't actually exist. You cannot accept that a significant group of Americans are simply too poor to buy health insurance (OR HDTVs or PS3s), or are sick or have preexisting conditions that make them uninsurable in the current for-profit system. You cannot accept that these people would dearly love to be able to purchase health care for themselves and their children (10 million kids uninsured, JohnMc1 -- did they choose that?). You don't want to help them so you pretend they don't exist. I get it.

worldrepublic

LostinKildare wrote: »

No, I get your point.

Sure, there are some people who have access to good, affordable insurance and choose not to avail of it. Nobody's forcing them to. But to suggest that those people make up the entirety, or even majority, of the uninsured in the U.S. is gross, gross denial. You put the words poor and sick into scare quotes as if to imply that these groups don't actually exist. You cannot accept that a significant group of Americans are simply too poor to buy health insurance (OR HDTVs or PS3s), or are sick or have preexisting conditions that make them uninsurable in the current for-profit system. You cannot accept that these people would dearly love to be able to purchase health care for themselves and their children (10 million kids uninsured, JohnMc1 -- did they choose that?). You don't want to help them so you pretend they don't exist. I get it.

The sentiment you offer brings a tear to my eye! Your problem is that you aim (prematurely) at some ideal world, one in which all poor people and all sick people get the care, love and treatment they need.... where humankind develop better transport for everyone.... build a colony on Mars, etc. etc. Which is all well and good, except who is going to pay for all of this? How? The types of issues that arise in the case of, for example, government controlled healthcare -is that those who work hard, obey the law etc. actually end up not being able to maintain their health. A disproportionate amount of resources go toward "managing" the needs of everyone. There are certain things I do not want the government to "manage" or control for me -like would you go to a government managed holiday resort? But think of all the poor people and little vulnerable children who never get to go to a holiday resort.... we need government run holidays for everyone!

Maybe, just maybe, long after we are both dead, there will be an actual civilisation on this planet capable of bringing about an all inclusive system of non-corrupt government. I know this sounds harsh, but it's reality.

worldrepublic

LostinKildare wrote: »

Yep, it's a dog-eat-dog world, and you want to keep it that way. I've got mine, f*ck off. You sound like a Republican all right.

What happened to your compassionate, loving persona? Get real!

JohnMc1

LostinKildare wrote: »

No, I get your point.

Sure, there are some people who have access to good, affordable insurance and choose not to avail of it. Nobody's forcing them to. But to suggest that those people make up the entirety, or even majority, of the uninsured in the U.S. is gross, gross denial. You put the words poor and sick into scare quotes as if to imply that these groups don't actually exist. You cannot accept that a significant group of Americans are simply too poor to buy health insurance (OR HDTVs or PS3s), or are sick or have preexisting conditions that make them uninsurable in the current for-profit system. You cannot accept that these people would dearly love to be able to purchase health care for themselves and their children (10 million kids uninsured, JohnMc1 -- did they choose that?). You don't want to help them so you pretend they don't exist. I get it.

If they are that poor then they already qualify for Medicaid. If they do not want to use it then that is their problem not mine. Call it whatever you want but that's the pure unadulterated bottom line.

JohnMc1

worldrepublic wrote: »

What happened to your compassionate, loving persona? Get real!

He is a liberal afterall. That kind of behavior is to be expected.

LostinKildare

worldrepublic wrote: »

What happened to your compassionate, loving persona? Get real!

What?! I have sympathy for the people we are talking about, but not for your ugly attitude toward them. No contradiction there. But sneer away! But it's late and I'm going to bed.

worldrepublic

LostinKildare wrote: »

What?! I have sympathy for the people we are talking about, but not for your ugly attitude toward them. No contradiction there. But sneer away! But it's late and I'm going to bed.

Don't let the bed bugs bite! (make sure you're insured, just in case they do!)

JohnMc1

LostinKildare wrote: »

What?! I have sympathy for the people we are talking about, but not for your ugly attitude toward them. No contradiction there. But sneer away! But it's late and I'm going to bed.

The only ugly attitude is yours. If a "poor" person doesn't want to use Medicaid or any other Medical Help available then that is not my problem or any other US tax payers problems. Trying to label us as hateful or whatever is not going to work. I pay my taxes and take care of my family. I am not obligated to support or give healthcare to anybody else.

Ruskie4Rent

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If they are that poor then they already qualify for Medicaid. If they do not want to use it then that is their problem not mine. Call it whatever you want but that's the pure unadulterated bottom line.

The only ugly attitude is yours. If a "poor" person doesn't want to use Medicaid or any other Medical Help available then that is not my problem or any other US tax payers problems. Trying to label us as hateful or whatever is not going to work. I pay my taxes and take care of my family. I am not obligated to support or give healthcare to anybody else.

The majority of poor families are not covered by medicaid afaik.
Also, there are those without healthcare because private insurors won't cover those with pre-existing conditions, not because they can't afford it or they'd prefer to buy playstations.

bobbyjoe

Bloomberg report on who are the uninsured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Z0NEiAYVA

Sand

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Thanks worldrepublic.

Now that is sarcasm.

I hope.

Idiot. She acts against her own interests, endangering her own husband's health/life and her family's future by fighting tooth-and-nail against an opportunity to buy affordable coverage for her husband. More than 18,000 Americans die every year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care.

What I liked about her was she noted that healthcare wasnt a natural born right. That makes her smarter than 99% of people in the Western world who assume it is.

This is a level of wisdom that needs to be spread throughout all lands and peoples.

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote: »

Now that is sarcasm.

I hope.



What I liked about her was she noted that healthcare wasnt a natural born right. That makes her smarter than 99% of people in the Western world who assume it is.

This is a level of wisdom that needs to be spread throughout all lands and peoples.

There is something to like about her???
Why shouldn't healthcare be a natural born right?
I like how she she shouts Heil Hitler at a Jewish man while she is wearing an IDF T-shirt.

jank

Sand wrote: »

What I liked about her was she noted that healthcare wasnt a natural born right. That makes her smarter than 99% of people in the Western world who assume it is.

This is a level of wisdom that needs to be spread throughout all lands and peoples.

What? Seriously you are saying that nobody is entitled to health care unless they can pay for it? What next primary education?

I agree with you on alot of the more free market economic points you make, but the right to a good basic level of health care should be a right for us all when we are born and when we die, it should not be judged on the size of ones wallet or the luck that you are born into a rich family. There is room of course for a private health industry in every country to compete with the public option but for those that cannot pay they should not be left on their own. Something like the Dutch model would be good one to look at.

Now if you want breast implants or something like that then you can **** off and pay for it yourself, but to deny someone a life saving operation cause they cant afford it is just wrong in all ways.

I hope you never get poor Sand.

Sand

Healthcare is not a natural born right.

Thats a statement of fact. I like that because so many people today assume that if we establish a legal right to something, it will naturally follow that it will be provided.

Its touching, but the reality is that if you do not provide for the establishment of <insertservicehere>, then it does not matter if it is a right. It wont be provided. And vice versa, if you establish the provision of a service, it will be provided, regardless of it being a right or not.

This woman recognises this basic truth. That healthcare is not a natural right. It is not free. It has to be paid for, has to be established, has to be provided for.

There is no drought of healthcare in the US. There are plenty of world class doctors, and world class hospitals. I am reminded of a recent opinion piece by a US journalist whose wife fell in the UK and who was struck by the differences between the UK and the US. If I recall correctly, he was struck by the lack of resources in the UK, and the poor facilities and poor conditions ( he praised the professionalism of the UK staff however), whereas in the US the hospitals were far better run, and far cleaner.

The US system is different, but it does not mean it is worse.

What? Seriously you are saying that nobody is entitled to health care unless they can pay for it?

I am saying its not natural born right. It is something that has to be established and paid for. There is nothing natural about it.

Now if you want breast implants or something like that then you can **** off and pay for it yourself, but to deny someone a life saving operation cause they cant afford it is just wrong in all ways.

No such thing as a life saving operation. We are all dying, second by second.

Why shouldn't healthcare be a natural born right?

There are two basic viewpoints of the world - objective...how things are. And subjective...how things should be. You might wish that health care is available to all from birth to grave. Grand. Dont ever make the mistake that it is a natural born right. It is something that has been decided to provide and pay for. It is not a naturally occuring event.

Its very possible that a society that passes a law guaranteeing universal health care, yet makes little or no provision for such health care will end up with a far worse health system than a country that simply concentrates on providing a health care system as opposed to rights to a health care system. Whilst simultaneously patting themselves on the back for establishing the legal right to health care....its the thought that counts, right?

I hope you never get poor Sand.

Me too.

bobbyjoe

The question asked was about rights. Your reply is about natural rights. Don't think anyone is saying health doesn't have to be paid and provided for.

jank

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Woman shouts Heil Hitler at a Jewish guy for supporting a public option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHsUi2Hu4Ug

Barney Frank puts some dumbass in her place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8


They should have just done it without consultation and all the town hall crap like Bush used to do.

Cheers for that, god bless the ****ing crazies..... there is the reason right there that the GOP wont see the inside of the white house for a few years yet!

jank

Healthcare is not a natural born right.

Thats a statement of fact

Well then neither is the right to life!

Yes you may be right....., in the natural world of about 10,000 BC. We now have a thing call a civilization where things are provided for its citizens, education, health, security and so on. We don't live in the Serengeti, we live in towns and cities and countries.

Do you think we should revert back to an archaic society?

I am saying its not natural born right. It is something that has to be established and paid for. There is nothing natural about it.

I never said anything about natural.

There are two basic viewpoints of the world - objective...how things are. And subjective...how things should be. You might wish that health care is available to all from birth to grave. Grand. Don't ever make the mistake that it is a natural born right. It is something that has been decided to provide and pay for. It is not a naturally occurring event.

Again, I never said anything about natural.

Sorry but you are talking like a lawyer and dancing around words. Of course it has to be paid for just like any other service. Why do we pay taxes?
But it is a right that people should have access to it.

There is no drought of healthcare in the US. There are plenty of world class doctors, and world class hospitals. I am reminded of a recent opinion piece by a US journalist whose wife fell in the UK and who was struck by the differences between the UK and the US. If I recall correctly, he was struck by the lack of resources in the UK, and the poor facilities and poor conditions ( he praised the professionalism of the UK staff however), whereas in the US the hospitals were far better run, and far cleaner.

The US system is different, but it does not mean it is worse.

I too visited a hospital in Boston many years ago after I got bitten by a dog. It was a world class hospital, probably the best I was ever in. Luckily as I was working at the time of the dog bite work paid for it through their insurance. I shudder to think what it would have cost if I didn't have insurance. Easily 4 figures anyway. No point having spanking clean world class hospitals if it is bankrupting people to use it.

If you want facts then the US spends more per GDP on health than any other developed country in the world and any world survey on health has then on the bottom half of the list. A 3 year old can tell there is something wrong here.

Its very possible that a society that passes a law guaranteeing universal health care, yet makes little or no provision for such health care will end up with a far worse health system than a country that simply concentrates on providing a health care system as opposed to rights to a health care system. Whilst simultaneously patting themselves on the back for establishing the legal right to health care....its the thought that counts, right?

If you honestly think that the rest of the world thinks like that (because you are all knowing with your wisdom after all), then I would suggest taking that very articulate heard of yours out of your ***.

So what would you propose Sand as you never seem to nail your opinion to the mast in any topic. What would you do?

No such thing as a life saving operation. We are all dying, second by second.

:rolleyes: I hope your children never have health issues as that remark stinks of cold-hearted high horse smugness.

Actually I am done talking to you.I hope you never have to stay up all night with your kids in a hospital praying they are all right after a car accident.

@$$hole..

irish_bob

Sand wrote: »

Healthcare is not a natural born right.

Thats a statement of fact. I like that because so many people today assume that if we establish a legal right to something, it will naturally follow that it will be provided.

Its touching, but the reality is that if you do not provide for the establishment of <insertservicehere>, then it does not matter if it is a right. It wont be provided. And vice versa, if you establish the provision of a service, it will be provided, regardless of it being a right or not.

This woman recognises this basic truth. That healthcare is not a natural right. It is not free. It has to be paid for, has to be established, has to be provided for.

There is no drought of healthcare in the US. There are plenty of world class doctors, and world class hospitals. I am reminded of a recent opinion piece by a US journalist whose wife fell in the UK and who was struck by the differences between the UK and the US. If I recall correctly, he was struck by the lack of resources in the UK, and the poor facilities and poor conditions ( he praised the professionalism of the UK staff however), whereas in the US the hospitals were far better run, and far cleaner.

The US system is different, but it does not mean it is worse.



I am saying its not natural born right. It is something that has to be established and paid for. There is nothing natural about it.



No such thing as a life saving operation. We are all dying, second by second.



There are two basic viewpoints of the world - objective...how things are. And subjective...how things should be. You might wish that health care is available to all from birth to grave. Grand. Dont ever make the mistake that it is a natural born right. It is something that has been decided to provide and pay for. It is not a naturally occuring event.

Its very possible that a society that passes a law guaranteeing universal health care, yet makes little or no provision for such health care will end up with a far worse health system than a country that simply concentrates on providing a health care system as opposed to rights to a health care system. Whilst simultaneously patting themselves on the back for establishing the legal right to health care....its the thought that counts, right?



Me too.

i fully agree with your post

regarding our own situation , i believe our health service should be completley privatised , im single and my health insurance costs 700 euro a year , due to our extremley genrous wellfare state , even the unemployed should be well able to afford health insurance , for a husband and wife with four kids , the cost would be about 50 euro per week , many smokers would spend that on fags every seven days and if someone thinks spending 50 quid a week on ciggys is more important than on health insurance , then they dont deserve to be treated , life is full of responsibilitys , if i dont insure my car and have a crash , their are serious consequences , why should it be any different when it comes to health

were our health service to be privatised , it would do away with all the politics which dominates the present system and the focus would be on providing the customer like in every other business with top class service at the right price , the state could still play a role in preventing insurance companies from gouging like what happens in america , as ive said before , thier has to be a 3rd way between the american system and an all out state run service

JohnMc1

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

The majority of poor families are not covered by medicaid afaik.

If they are poor they are already qualified. If they choose not to sign up or don't bother to sign up then that is their problem not mine or any other US tax payers.

People need to really get over their entitlement issues and start realizing that they are the only ones responsible for their quality of life.

Ruskie4Rent

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If they are poor they are already qualified. .

Not true for all cases. There are eligibility requirements.

People need to really get over their entitlement issues and start realizing that they are the only ones responsible for their quality of life.

I'm sorry, but how do you account for those who don't fall under the poverty line but are still denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Private insurance companies are only going to cover those that are less likely to claim. You are putting your head in the sand if you think that all those without coverage are responsible for their poor quality of life.

.....any other US tax payers.

Well thats the thing. The majority of US taxpayers obviously do think its their problem. They elected a president that supported health reform only last november.

ChocolateSauce

Pfft, taxpayer.

I hate that term when the Americans use it. It seems to me that in the US, only taxpayers are worthy of consideration.

JohnMc1

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Not true for all cases. There are eligibility requirements.

Then they should go private. Again its their problem. Nobody elses.

I'm sorry, but how do you account for those who don't fall under the poverty line but are still denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Private insurance companies are only going to cover those that are less likely to claim.

I have a PEC and went private. I did not cry like a baby. I went about my business like a responsible adult.

Well thats the thing. The majority of US taxpayers obviously do think its their problem by electing a president that supported health reform only last november.

Wrong. The only reason people supported him was because he promised to shrink the Govt not expand that. He grew the Govt so now the people are turning on him and deservedly so.

ChocolateSauce wrote:

Pfft, taxpayer.

I hate that term when the Americans use it. It seems to me that in the US, only taxpayers are worthy of consideration.

Considering we're supposed to be footing the bill for this nonsense we deserve more consideration than the Illegals and the Welfare lifers.

worldrepublic

Let's not forget that Hilary (fond memories of the Whitewater affair?) tried to introduced a very similar heath care policy. Oh but now Obama has given her a hug and made her Secretary of State -all hail Hilary. It's the same old Whitehouse. That said, I think even Hilary would have been more moderate as President that Obama the out and out radical. Amazing that these people always play into an almost religious following. I wouldn't be surprised if the two of them were having it off in the oval office (Bill likes to watch!).

ChocolateSauce

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Considering we're supposed to be footing the bill for this nonsense we deserve more consideration than the Illegals and the Welfare lifers.

Your assumption than everyone without insurance is either not American or a welfare lifer is stupid, racist, factually incorrect, statistically unlikely (to put it mildly), unthinking, uncaring, greedy, snobby, and downright unintelligent.

And yes, this is my "enlightened" opinion, as you're sure to put it.

How do you explain that France was ranked number 1 by the WHO, and the US 72? Yet the US spends twice as much per person than France? Don't you find this telling that there is a fundamental flaw with the American system?

JohnMc1

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Your assumption than everyone without insurance is either not American or a welfare lifer is stupid, racist, factually incorrect, statistically unlikely (to put it mildly), unthinking, uncaring, greedy, snobby, and downright unintelligent.

Wow. A liberal playing the race card again. I honestly did not see that coming. :rolleyes:

jank

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Wow. A liberal playing the race card again. I honestly did not see that coming. :rolleyes:

How about answering an honest question for once?

LostinKildare

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Considering we're supposed to be footing the bill for this nonsense we deserve more consideration than the Illegals and the Welfare lifers.

Just wondering, since you seem to be located in Kilkenny, do you even pay taxes in the U.S.? (Yes I know American citizens must file annual returns on worldwide income, but there's a pretty generous foreign income exclusion -- if you're making more than the threshold then you're probably doing okay and won't be crushed by kicking a few bob to your compatriots)

Or is your complaining about taxpaying just sound and fury, signifying nothing?

Ruskie4Rent

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Wrong. The only reason people supported him was because he promised to shrink the Govt not expand that.

What:eek:? First off, when did he promise that? And second, you must be seriously be deluded if you think thats the ONLY reason why 52% of a record turnout voted for him.

Then they should go private. Again its their problem. Nobody elses.

They can't afford it.

I have a PEC and went private. I did not cry like a baby. I went about my business like a responsible adult.

Some people with PEC's are being denied coverage.

You seem to think that its simply a case of people choosing to be uninsured. They don't have access.

Considering we're supposed to be footing the bill for this nonsense

Unless you earn above 350k, you won't be.

The only people who have anything to lose if this 'nonsense' gets passed, are the private insurers who don't want to offer more cheaper rates and better service.

The only people who have anything to lose if this 'nonsense' does not get passed, are the 45million uninsured and those who would prefer private coverage and will get a more competative service.