Rush Limbaugh Believes the Poor Don't Deserve Healthcare

[Sunstone]

Are you talking about the greatest economic boom in America's history (1982-2007)... Show me where conservatism failed.

It was a great economic boom for the very rich, Joe, but it was pretty much a disaster for most of the middle class and the poor. So, yes, conservatism failed the middle class and the poor.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi challupa,

Well then your country is primative. Everyone in my country has access to healthcare no matter how poor they are. No one deserves better healthcare because they are richer or politically connected. While I realize that it is probably true that they get it faster if they pay for it, and that does mean the rich have an edge, doesn't mean there shouldn't be a healthcare system in place that provides excellent healthcare to everyone. Where I live we don't have to pay to go to the hospital or a clinic. There are certain services that aren't covered, but they are mostly cosmetic in nature. Our street people have the same care as anyone. The one difference between the rich and poor in our country is the speed of receiving the services. If they are willing to pay out of their own pocket, they do get quicker service. That isn't right, but it is a fact of life. However, there is no one that is denied service if they can't pay. If they come into emergency, they get treated immediately based on the severity of their illness. It's not perfect, but it's better than denying people who cannot pay. That is simply barbaric and elitism at it's very worst imo.

Take a look at the links in posted in my last reply to TheAmazingLoser. The NHS in Great Britain refuse to give painkillers to patients suffering in agony. Babies are born in hallways because of a shortage of rooms. And Canadians are coming to our terrible and inhumane country for healthcare.

 

[T-Dawg]

And you can show me this right in the Constitution, correct?

Doesn't it say something about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Are you talking about the greatest economic boom in America's history (1982-2007) or the Federal Reserve creating the housing bubble with help from GSEs Fannie and Freddie causing this current recession? Show me where conservatism failed.

Both. The "greatest economic boom" you're talking about was an economic bubble funded entirely by debt - under Reagan, the US went from 7 million to 3 TRILLION in debt. That's where "free market" conservatism failed. And the current recession from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is where big government conservatism failed.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

It was a great economic boom for the very rich, Joe, but it was pretty much a disaster for most of the middle class and the poor. So, yes, conservatism failed the middle class and the poor.

Not according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Every income group became wealthier during the Reagan years.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hi TAL,

And you can show me this right in the Constitution, correct?



Not quite.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html

The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets | Mail Online

I'd just like to step in and say the the UK's NHS is struggling to cope because of poor leadership and pointless Bureaucracy that's clogging up the system, mostly thanks to New Labour. The concept of it is good, it's just the people in charge are bad.

Still, many people here have been happy with the NHS, although the standards do appear to be declining, especially as the population has increased.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi Sunstone,



Not according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Every income group became wealthier during the Reagan years.

Adjusted for inflation, the actual buying power of the middle class and poor rose by at most 1% or 2% during those years. Essentially, real earnings were flat during that time. On the other hand, productivity increased dramatically. So where were the earnings from productivity going? To the rich, Joe.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TAL,

Doesn't it say something about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

That's the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Both. The "greatest economic boom" you're talking about was an economic bubble funded entirely by debt - under Reagan, the US went from 7 million to 3 TRILLION in debt. That's where "free market" conservatism failed.

Yes, Reagan deserves some blame, for believing liberals in Congress would control spending. Reagan was promised 3$ of spending cuts for 1$ tax increase. He never got that.

And the current recession from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is where big government conservatism failed.

Which party defended any reform of Fannie or Freddie? Yes, that was the Democratic Party. You are ignorant of basic history.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

Adjusted for inflation, the actual buying power of the middle class and poor rose by at most 1% or 2% during those years. Essentially, real earnings were flat during that time. On the other hand, productivity increased dramatically. So where were the earnings from productivity going? To the rich, Joe.

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.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

I'd just like to step in and say the the UK's NHS is struggling to cope because of poor leadership and pointless Bureaucracy that's clogging up the system, mostly thanks to New Labour. The concept of it is good, it's just the people in charge are bad.

Still, many people here have been happy with the NHS, although the standards do appear to be declining, especially as the population has increased.

I also believe the NHS cannot overturn basic laws of economics.

 

[Sunstone]

How is your figure for income per person arrived at, Joe? Isn't it arrived at via the customary means of dividing national income by population? And if so, on what grounds do you believe that gives a fair assessment? Put differently, why do you want to use a measure that counts Bill Gate's income as part of any increase or decrease in the income for the middle class?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

How is your figure for income per person arrived at, Joe? Isn't it arrived at via the customary means of dividing national income by population? And if so, on what grounds do you believe that gives a fair assessment? Put differently, why do you want to use a measure that counts Bill Gate's income as part of any increase or decrease in the income for the middle class?

A per person measure is more reliable because the unit of measure cannot change. It is one person and stays one person. Per household as a unit of measure changes all the time. And in recent decades has declined. So, when you use per household income to show that the middle class haven't become richer you are failing to show that the size of the household got smaller thus making the growth seem nonexistent.

And you would have to use everyone because economic classes aren't fixed. People don't stay poor, or in the middle class or rich. They move up and some fall down.

 

[Sunstone]

A per person measure is more reliable because the unit of measure cannot change. It is one person and stays one person.

That's irrelevant to my point that per person includes Bill Gate's, Warren Buffet's, and other rich folks incomes in it's calculation of whether the middle class has been getting richer, poorer, or staying about the same. Why is that not an entirely absurd way to measure it? You might as well measure middle class income using statistics showing the prevalence of tigers in Thailand. It's about as relevant.

Per household as a unit of measure changes all the time. And in recent decades has declined. So, when you use per household income to show that the middle class haven't become richer you are failing to show that the size of the household got smaller thus making the growth seem nonexistent.

Are you seriously suggesting that figures cannot be adjusted for changing household sizes?

 

[challupa]

Hi challupa,



Take a look at the links in posted in my last reply to TheAmazingLoser. The NHS in Great Britain refuse to give painkillers to patients suffering in agony. Babies are born in hallways because of a shortage of rooms. And Canadians are coming to our terrible and inhumane country for healthcare.

They only go to your country if they can pay for it. So we are right back to square one where the ones who cannot, go without. That isn't the case where I live, everyone has access to healthcare rich and poor. The only downside is the speed for non emergency procedures for those who cannot pay. Any emergency is paid for and people aren't turned away because they don't have money. If I was a street person and showed up at emerg, I would be cared for in the same way as the Prime Minister. I might not get a private room and other special things, but I would still get healthcare. I do not believe your country is terrible or inhumane, but some of it's practices are primative. Denying anyone healthcare because of not being able to pay is imo primative.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hi Paul,

I also believe the NHS cannot overturn basic laws of economics.

The idea of universal Healthcare is totally viable in my opinion. All you need is workforce, management, resources and maintenance.

It can work, so long as the Government isn't trying to reduce it's potential and clog up it's efficiency with budget cuts and pointless Bureaucracy, along with a poor management of Staff.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I would like to suggest that it is probably the poor that need good healthcare the most, considering the cheapest foods are the worst for you, not to mention the less sanitary conditions the poor often live in.

In other words, the rich can afford the healthier food and more sanitary conditions.

 

[challupa]

The idea of universal Healthcare is totally viable in my opinion. All you need is workforce, management, resources and maintenance.

It can work, so long as the Government isn't trying to reduce it's potential and clog up it's efficiency with budget cuts and pointless Bureaucracy, along with a poor management of Staff.

It is viable. It's not perfect, but it does work pretty well. I do not pay anything for my healthcare. I can go to a doctor or the hospital and not have to pay for these services. I can have an x-ray or an MRI and not pay anything. I do have to wait for an MRI longer than a rich person would, but I can have one without having to pay for it. I think we have it pretty good.

 

[Scott C.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lpx-hG1uaiA&feature=player_embedded

Do you agree or disagree with Limbaugh over whether the poor deserve access to health care? Why or why not?

Do you think Limbaugh is telling the truth that he is concerned with making America the best society that it can be? Why or why not?

Rush said if you have money, you'll get a house on the beach. If you don't, you'll get a bungalow. So, he's saying that some people will get "house on the beach" healthcare and some will get "bungalow" healthcare, depending on what they can afford. He doesn't believe that people with houses on the beach should be forced to buy less expensive homes so that people with bunaglows can buy more expensive homes. He feels the same way about healthcare. That's clear from the quote.

So, the question "Do you agree or disagree with Limbaugh over whether the poor deserve access to health care?", is like asking "Do you agree of disagree with Limbaugh over whether the poor deserve a house"? Neither question accurately reflects what Rush said.

A better question would be "do you agree or disagree with Limbaugh that it's ok that more wealthy people can afford more healthcare than poor people?

The answer really depends on what is meant by "bungalow" healthcare. Rush did not say.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

That's irrelevant to my point that per person includes Bill Gate's, Warren Buffet's, and other rich folks incomes in it's calculation of whether the middle class has been getting richer, poorer, or staying about the same. Why is that not an entirely absurd way to measure it? You might as well measure middle class income using statistics showing the prevalence of tigers in Thailand. It's about as relevant.

You are correct. The per person unit of measure still would be more reliable than per household but you can isolate your search of data according to census figures.

Are you seriously suggesting that figures cannot be adjusted for changing household sizes?

How would you adjust it without skewing the data?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi challupa,

They only go to your country if they can pay for it. So we are right back to square one where the ones who cannot, go without.

This makes your system even more cruel. So, people could pay for their own healthcare but the government wouldn't let them. How does this help anybody? This confirms Churchill's adage that socialism is the equal sharing of misery. Why punish people that have the resources to purchase their own healthcare?

If I was a street person and showed up at emerg, I would be cared for in the same way as the Prime Minister.

Same thing in the U.S.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Paul,

The idea of universal Healthcare is totally viable in my opinion. All you need is workforce, management, resources and maintenance.

It can work, so long as the Government isn't trying to reduce it's potential and clog up it's efficiency with budget cuts and pointless Bureaucracy, along with a poor management of Staff.

But there seems to be a trend in countries with socialized healthcare: waiting and rationing. Then the decision on who gets healthcare becomes a poltical decision and not a personal decision of the person(s) seeking healthcare.