• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rush Limbaugh Believes the Poor Don't Deserve Healthcare

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
Right...work on the symptoms, don't fix the problem.

You're right - we SHOULD focus on the problem, not the symptom... the problem is CONSERVATISM and people who believe as you do - the healthcare crisis is only a symptom. If conservatives all suddenly vanished, we could provide healthcare to everyone, no problem. Now we just gotta decide what to do with conservatism that doesn't infringe on people's rights... =/.
 

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
Nope.

Jackytar

Actually, it's true. Hospitals are only required to care for people without money if it's an emergency situation - thus, the usual strategy is to turn patients away until their condition gets serious, making it cost far more for everyone.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
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?

Uninsured people die at a higher rate than insured people. I don't doubt houses without fire protection burn to the ground at a higher rate than those with, or that neighbourhoods with police patrolmen wandering around have lower crime rates than those without.

If you accept the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal" and have an "inalienable right to life" (in particular), the argument for equal protection from disaster, ill health and crime for all citizens follows quite naturally.

It would be quite a struggle to argue otherwise, in fact.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Eliminating conservatism in America would go a long way.

There is more of us than there is of you all. How do you propose to eliminate us?

I believe you would be better off working on your tolerance level for us evil conservatives. We are not going anywhere. :no:
 
Last edited:

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Uninsured people die at a higher rate than insured people. I don't doubt houses without fire protection burn to the ground at a higher rate than those with, or that neighbourhoods with police patrolmen wandering around have lower crime rates than those without.

If you accept the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal" and have an "inalienable right to life" (in particular), the argument for equal protection from disaster, ill health and crime for all citizens follows quite naturally.

It would be quite a struggle to argue otherwise, in fact.
Personally, if my house were on fire I would rather it burn to the ground. Insurance would then cover the cost of a new home. Smoke damage is a pain in the but.

I've seen no where that the founding fathers expected the government to give anyone anything other than the right to pursue these things.
 

Jackytar

Ex-member
Actually, it's true. Hospitals are only required to care for people without money if it's an emergency situation - thus, the usual strategy is to turn patients away until their condition gets serious, making it cost far more for everyone.

What are you guys calling an emergency? Can you give me an example of what patient complaint can be legally turned away?

Jackytar
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
That is your reasoning? Necessity = entitlement? That's it? Really?

Jackytar

Yup. That's it. That's generally how the world works. Sorry, I thought that was common knowledge. Glad I could help bring some enlightenment into your day. :)
 
Top