Why be against universal healthcare?

[The Sum of Awe]

It's not about the healthcare itself. It's for the people. With the current system, not everyone can get help. Later this year, I, myself, am set to be without any form of healthcare for a year before Obamacare kicks in for me. If I break my arm, or get really sick during that time, I'm screwed(and by the way, I'm quite fragile and somewhat sickly). I can't afford healthcare, and neither can my family.

With universal healthcare, that wouldn't be a problem. Anyone could just go to the hospital to get healed when necessary. I fail to see how that's in any way problematic.

Don't you have health insurance?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Is it greedy to depend on other people's things or is it greedy to keep your earned things to yourself?

It's greedy not to help out your fellow American when he's down on his luck, lost his job, and is facing hardship. Health is one of the most basic things a person needs for survival, and the health industry should not be run like a business, because then it's more about the money than the health and well-being of the person.

 

[dust1n]

Is it greedy to depend on other people's things or is it greedy to keep your earned things to yourself?

I don't know. You are a minor, no? Do you feel greedy?

 

[dawny0826]

I don't know. You are a minor, no? Do you feel greedy?

Hey! I cry foul on that one.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't know. You are a minor, no? Do you feel greedy?

Indeed I do. That's why I have a job. Beyond that, when my parents give me money for food and such, that's a family thing.

Also, people start out somewhere. These two situations are hardly alike, as when I grow older I'll have to stop depending on them, and in fact I have stopped depending on them quite a bit.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's greedy not to help out your fellow American when he's down on his luck, lost his job, and is facing hardship. Health is one of the most basic things a person needs for survival, and the health industry should not be run like a business, because then it's more about the money than the health and well-being of the person.

But when you're forced, then who's the greedy one?

 

[dust1n]

Indeed I do. That's why I have a job. Beyond that, when my parents give me money for food and such, that's a family thing.

Also, people start out somewhere. These two situations are hardly alike, as when I grow older I'll have to stop depending on them, and in fact I have stopped depending on them quite a bit.

I see. So it's entirely conditional upon your discretion what kinds of dependency qualify as selfishness or greedy? How about all the minors who don't have insurance because of what their parents 'earned,' yet contract one of many diseases children contract? Is it greedy for them to be dependent upon the state if a child injure himself? What if he contracted AID's in a rape or some from a parent, something that cost about $400,000 dollars to treat over a lifetime? Is that greedy to be dependent on some civic help, or is it greedy to sit back and think that no one is partially responsible for making healthcare available to 'dependents' or that one shouldn't contribute to those in need?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I see. So it's entirely conditional upon your discretion what kinds of dependency qualify as selfishness or greedy?

Of course, in the same way it's entirely conditional upon YOUR discretion of the same.

How about all the minors who don't have insurance because of what their parents 'earned,' yet contract one of many diseases children contract? Is it greedy for them to be dependent upon the state if a child injure himself?

It's a minor, they don't have money, of course they're an exception of this. But whether or not they're an exception of it when it's being forced, then I'd say it's greedy of whoever is forcing you, and it's probably not the minor.

What if he contracted AID's in a rape or some from a parent, something that cost about $400,000 dollars to treat over a lifetime? Is that greedy to be dependent on some civic help, or is it greedy to sit back and think that no one is partially responsible for making healthcare available to 'dependents' or that one shouldn't contribute to those in need?

Same as above I accidentally cut the quote in half

 

[dawny0826]

I see. So it's entirely conditional upon your discretion what kinds of dependency qualify as selfishness or greedy? How about all the minors who don't have insurance because of what their parents 'earned,' yet contract one of many diseases children contract? Is it greedy for them to be dependent upon the state if a child injure himself? What if he contracted AID's in a rape or some from a parent, something that cost about $400,000 dollars to treat over a lifetime? Is that greedy to be dependent on some civic help, or is it greedy to sit back and think that no one is partially responsible for making healthcare available to 'dependents' or that one shouldn't contribute to those in need?

What's unfair is that he's paying taxes and supporting programs that he may not agree with and has no political voice as of yet, to oppose.

 

[Falvlun]

What's unfair is that he's paying taxes and supporting programs that he may not agree with and has no political voice as of yet, to oppose.

Ooh, interesting thought. Do you think that anyone under the age of 18 shouldn't have to pay taxes?

I'm totally on board with that. That's definitely "taxation without representation".

 

[dust1n]

Of course, in the same way it's entirely conditional upon YOUR discretion of the same.

I've only asked questions.

It's a minor, they don't have money, of course they're an exception of this. But whether or not they're an exception of it when it's being forced, then I'd say it's greedy of whoever is forcing you, and it's probably not the minor.

Same as above I accidentally cut the quote in half

I'm trying to understand here. You would say it is more greedy of the government to force you to pay taxes to fund healthcare for children whose parent's have no insurance than it is to think that one should be able to work in this country and not pay taxes to help children who do not have health insurance? Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[dust1n]

What's unfair is that he's paying taxes and supporting programs that he may not agree with and has no political voice as of yet, to oppose.

That's a whole different can of worms, no?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I've only asked questions.

But that only works on paper, you still have an opinion on it.

I'm trying to understand here. You would say it is more greedy of the government to force you to pay taxes to fund healthcare for children whose parent's have no insurance than it is to think that one should be able to work in this country and not pay taxes to help children who do not have health insurance? Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes, even though you've put it in a pessimistic manner, though I suppose that's usually how debates go

 

[Copernicus]

What's unfair is that he's paying taxes and supporting programs that he may not agree with and has no political voice as of yet, to oppose.

But it is fair, because we all have to pay taxes that support programs we disagree with. Let's not forget why we organize ourselves into groups. In order to enjoy the benefits of group membership, you have to give us some things, whether it be dues or taxes. You don't have to like everything the group does in order to be a member, you just have to accept the terms of membership. As a citizen, you enjoy a lot of benefits, but that doesn't give you the right to stop paying taxes because your elected representatives decide to spend some tax money on things you don't like. The taxes don't belong to individual citizens. They belong to all citizens collectively.

People who complain the loudest about high taxes do not stop driving on roads, drinking clean water, calling the police to report a burglary, etc. They want and expect those services to be in place. Getting the government to lower taxes doesn't mean that the government will eliminate the things you disagree with. It is more likely that they will eliminate some things you would like it to keep.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's a whole different can of worms, no?

So you do have a discretion on what kinds of dependency qualify as selfishness or greedy? Assuming that, even your question was a whole different can of worms as well, that you find it unjust that minors pay tax? Just assuming that of course.

 

[Falvlun]

But it is fair, because we all have to pay taxes that support programs we disagree with. Let's not forget why we organize ourselves into groups. In order to enjoy the benefits of group membership, you have to give us some things, whether it be dues or taxes. You don't have to like everything the group does in order to be a member, you just have to accept the terms of membership. As a citizen, you enjoy a lot of benefits, but that doesn't give you the right to stop paying taxes because your elected representatives decide to spend some tax money on things you don't like. The taxes don't belong to individual citizens. They belong to all citizens collectively.

People who complain the loudest about high taxes do not stop driving on roads, drinking clean water, calling the police to report a burglary, etc. They want and expect those services to be in place. Getting the government to lower taxes doesn't mean that the government will eliminate the things you disagree with. It is more likely that they will eliminate some things you would like it to keep.

The saliant point was "has no political voice as of yet". A teenager who works before he is 18 must pay taxes, but he cannot vote yet. I think that is a valid concern.

I agree that paying taxes for programs you don't agree with is just how it is and tuff luck to you then.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But it is fair, because we all have to pay taxes that support programs we disagree with. Let's not forget why we organize ourselves into groups. In order to enjoy the benefits of group membership, you have to give us some things, whether it be dues or taxes. You don't have to like everything the group does in order to be a member, you just have to accept the terms of membership. As a citizen, you enjoy a lot of benefits, but that doesn't give you the right to stop paying taxes because your elected representatives decide to spend some tax money on things you don't like. The taxes don't belong to individual citizens. They belong to all citizens collectively.

I can so see the importance in certain taxes, but I don't understand how healthcare taxes are necessary at all. If there were no such thing as tax, I'd definitely donate some amount of my money to those who need it. But having a threat to pay doesn't influence me one bit.

People who complain the loudest about high taxes do not stop driving on roads, drinking clean water, calling the police to report a burglary, etc. They want and expect those services to be in place. Getting the government to lower taxes doesn't mean that the government will eliminate the things you disagree with. It is more likely that they will eliminate some things you would like it to keep.

Now, now, now, the road argument has been explained, no need to resurrect it

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Extending people's lives so they can draw a check longer and be a burden on the system seems counter productive to me. Should we spend six figures on an operation that will allow a person to live another couple of years? What if their already costing the government 100K a year to live in a nursing home?

We all are going to die. Should we spend money we don't have on things that our children are going to have to pay for?

What is wrong with just living out our natural life?

We should have a health care system that we can maintain for generations not a system that drains our ability to provide for folks in the future.

Ask yourself something, which would be money better spent, 200K for grandma to extend her life for another year or a new house for a grandchild to live in and raise a family?

This house could provide for two or three generations.

You tell me which would be money better spent?

I know you mean well, Rev. Rick. But this is so far off base I don't even know where to begin. Instead of disagreeing with you I just want to point out how perfectly this sums up the American Right's position on health care: you have expressed one-half of the position extremely well: essentially, grandma costs too much, let's pull the plug. The other half is: we don't want government death panels pulling the plug on grandma just because she costs too much.

This is the explosion of nonsense you get when misapprehension of the facts collides with inconsistent reasoning. It doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong--it's just noise. It would really be best if Americans on the Right (bless them) could just scrap everything they think they believe about health care, and start over from a blank slate.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Is this a nation of "the people united", or every man for himself? Is this truly the "united" states, or are we too selfish to worry about other people?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Is this a nation of "the people united", or every man for himself? Is this truly the "united" states, or are we too selfish to worry about other people?

Well, if you call independence selfish then yes., and united we stand together, but we use our own two legs to walk as a country of independence.