Rush Limbaugh Believes the Poor Don't Deserve Healthcare

[angellous_evangellous]

I will never forgive you and your kind for what you did. Never. You crossed a line. You don't deserve to be in this country now.

That's about where I am.

The really disturbing thing is that the conservatives are ready to do it again. :thud:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why is health care any different than any other product/service you can purchase if rich enough?

Because it's a matter of life or death, and not a matter of luxury. Rich people shouldn't be the only ones who have access to goods and services that are essential to basic well-being, and some of these goods and services are expensive. It simply makes sense that as a nation we pool our resources and reform our laws to make health care more sensible for everyone.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

I have read through this, and I am very taken by the Health Care situation in this country. It's an important issue that needs to be resolved.
Please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B98muhufAGE

 

[linwood]

It's different for the same reason police and fire departments are different, and all other services that are "socialized". They aren't "houses on the beach". They are necessities that everyone is entitled to.

Yes exactly how I look at it.

But not everyone shares our world view so I wonder( as Sunstone asks )...is this type of outlook sincere or does it have some other motivating factor?

Because it obviously holds the wrong priorities if you actually want a society to flourish

 

[challupa]

Yes exactly how I look at it.

But not everyone shares our world view so I wonder( as Sunstone asks )...is this type of outlook sincere or does it have some other motivating factor?

Because it obviously holds the wrong priorities if you actually want a society to flourish

Well I'm not convinced that politicians or those in control whether corporations or rich in general want society to flourish. Obviously it has to do well enough to continue to support their lifestyle, but allowing society to actually flourish, I believe would not be in their best interests. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Jackytar]

They are necessities that everyone is entitled to.

I'd be very interested to hear the reasoning behind this statement.

Jackytar

 

[Alceste]

I'd be very interested to hear the reasoning behind this statement.

Jackytar

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

[Magic Man]

I'd be very interested to hear the reasoning behind this statement.

Jackytar

What reasoning? Basic medical care is a necessity for anyone. Are you actually disagreeing with that?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Common sense for the economically disadvantaged to have less health care than the upper class?
Health care should not be a commodity for the upper class to possess and the poor and middle class to struggle to obtain.
Do you, or do you not, believe that quality health care should be available to anyone, no matter their economic standing?

Let's be clear here, good health comes from good genes, good diet, and exercise. So legislate it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

How do you then correlate these to fire/police protection and health care? Can you show that this was the intent of the founding fathers?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because it's a matter of life or death, and not a matter of luxury. Rich people shouldn't be the only ones who have access to goods and services that are essential to basic well-being, and some of these goods and services are expensive. It simply makes sense that as a nation we pool our resources and reform our laws to make health care more sensible for everyone.

Wouldn't that be achieved by lessening the government interference in people's ability to earn better incomes?

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Let's be clear here, good health comes from good genes, good diet, and exercise. So legislate it.

True, true, but what about when an accident befalls someone? Or environmental (natural or otherwise) factors result in poor health? It is true that many of the disease in our nation could be diminished through proper care of oneself, but there are instances when we need help to remain healthy or living.
Is it ethical/moral to deny medical care to one bleeding to death? Or is it ethical/moral to help them and then demand payment at outrageous cost? Is it ethical/moral to deny a woman in labor help? What about the newborn child, is it ethical/moral to ignore it once born?
Yes, humans have survived much without the health care we have now, but we have created a society where there are starving and invalids, sick and disfigured, dying or living in constant pain. Much of the suffering above created by our society. Why should we withhold help from them?
It is wrong to assume that because there is a form of help that everyone deserves it for nothing, but the point is to provide a way for our money we give the government already to make health care available for everybody. If one wishes to purchase additional coverage, they have that right.
Perhaps I am confused, but I was led to believe that the public option was simply that: an option for the public. Nowhere have I heard that private or supplemental insurance would be eradicated or banished.
So what is the problem? If we can provide a way for everyone to receive the care they need, and still have the rich have endless options, where is the debate against health care coming from? Lower cost? Hmm, I would think that even a wealthy person would like a deal, and if it's cheaper and not all the options they want, well, they are wealthy, buy the options and plan you want.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

True, true, but what about when an accident befalls someone? Or environmental (natural or otherwise) factors result in poor health? It is true that many of the disease in our nation could be diminished through proper care of oneself, but there are instances when we need help to remain healthy or living.
Is it ethical/moral to deny medical care to one bleeding to death? Or is it ethical/moral to help them and then demand payment at outrageous cost? Is it ethical/moral to deny a woman in labor help? What about the newborn child, is it ethical/moral to ignore it once born?
Yes, humans have survived much without the health care we have now, but we have created a society where there are starving and invalids, sick and disfigured, dying or living in constant pain. Much of the suffering above created by our society. Why should we withhold help from them?
It is wrong to assume that because there is a form of help that everyone deserves it for nothing, but the point is to provide a way for our money we give the government already to make health care available for everybody. If one wishes to purchase additional coverage, they have that right.
Perhaps I am confused, but I was led to believe that the public option was simply that: an option for the public. Nowhere have I heard that private or supplemental insurance would be eradicated or banished.
So what is the problem? If we can provide a way for everyone to receive the care they need, and still have the rich have endless options, where is the debate against health care coming from? Lower cost? Hmm, I would think that even a wealthy person would like a deal, and if it's cheaper and not all the options they want, well, they are wealthy, buy the options and plan you want.

It's my undestanding that no one is turned away from an ER.

As for society causing illness just legislate against it, hey?

And there is a public option already. Ever hear of Medicare and Medicaid?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's my undestanding that no one is turned away from an ER.

No they're turned away until it becomes an emergency. Then they can go to the ER at enormous expense. The motivation behind a for-profit business is profit. Period. You don't profit by pooling all the resources together and making sure everyone gets the care they need, or the police protection they need, or the clean drinking water they need, etc.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

And there is a public option already. Ever hear of Medicare and Medicaid?

Yes I have, have you ever been on either? It is a slippery option to get into. It depends on economic circumstances, and differs from state to state. If you make one dollar more than their estimated limit, you are disqualified. It is hardly a fair system. It works well for those who keep their heads down. In my opinion, it is a system which encourages people to stay in the lower income levels, as there is no gradation system: you are in or out. And sadly, once out, the cost of insurance is still steep, there is still no affordable income until you make much more than when you are disqualified for Medicare/caid.
Besides, why not do something like base tickets or fines off of economical status? Charge a percentage according to income? It's nothing for a wealthy person to pay off a speeding ticket, but to some it's a choice of food or ticket. Of course we shouldn't be speeding in the first place, but the point is that the system favors those with money, and encourages those without to stay down.
One reason why we need an affordable public option, to help those who are in the gray area between medicare and private insurance.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wouldn't that be achieved by lessening the government interference in people's ability to earn better incomes?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi Sunstone,

This is a bogus argument. Relying on income per household does appear to show stagnant growth. Of course the reason for this is that the size of a household has changed. Showing income per person shows an increase of 51% from 1969-1996.

Liberals have been using the unreliable 'per household' measure for years attempting to prove that the middle class is shrinking. It is not the case.

First, source, please. Second, 1969-1996 covers liberal and conservative policies (correct?) so even a gain during that period doesn't prove that the praises to the hero Reagan are justified. Third, does the per person income include the stay-at-home parents and teens who were earning 0 income? Maybe it doesn't, but if it does, then one big contribution to the increase in per-person income could simply be more people working -- kids, parents, etc. But the household income shows stagnation....great, so now mom, dad, and the oldest kids are working just to keep the household income the same.

What happened to the conservative idea of the stay-at-home parent? Not such a bad idea, i.m.o.

 

[Jackytar]

What reasoning? Basic medical care is a necessity for anyone. Are you actually disagreeing with that?

Necessity, yes. But entitlement? How do you figure that?

Jackytar

 

[Magic Man]

It's my undestanding that no one is turned away from an ER.

That's true. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if they could take care of the problem before it turned into something that bad? Think of the money that would be saved by having 30% of ER current ER patients not need to use the ER.

As for society causing illness just legislate against it, hey?

Society causing illness? Legislate what?

And there is a public option already. Ever hear of Medicare and Medicaid?

Again, that's true. However, they don't cover millions of people. What's wrong with extending Medicaid to anyone who can't afford any other insurance?

 

[Magic Man]

Necessity, yes. But entitlement? How do you figure that?

Jackytar

Oh, I thought that was implied by the necessity thing. I didn't realize you don't realize that people are entitled to necessities. My bad.