Posted on 08/11/2014 3:20:34 AM PDT by markomalley
“opted out on a going forward basis”. But it’ll be fine to keep the money that was already taken from them at gunpoint. How very reasonable of you.
“Not seeing patients that are still smoking”. That actually makes sense to me. If you’re not trying to help yourself.
Some were born to be free citizens. Others were born to be property of the state.
I can agree with not paying for treatment for smokers suffering from smoking related diseases using public money, but they should be treated as long as they can pay. I’m not sure I want my tax dollars going to pay for things like a third liver transplant for a welfare chile who didn’t bother to take his anti-rejection drugs.
How about we get the government the Hell out of the healthcare racket?
On this we're in total agreement.
The government has already spent it. It isn't there any more to return.
Couldn't agree more with both of those statements, but the second one's never going to happen.
Couldn’t agree more with both of those statements, but the second one’s never going to happen.
Edgar Friendly’s speech from “Demolition Man sums it all up -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hzT5DWdlWo
One of the best rants in Cinematic history.
but the second one’s never going to happen.
Oh by the way, liberals said we would never defeat the Soviet Union. They tried their damnest to make it so and never forgave President Reagan when it happened.
This refers to vascular surgery, not medical treatment in general.
As long as 51% of the voters in the country are fools who vote for whatever party promises them the most plunder looted from the pockets of the hard working then we're not going to get rid of wealth transfer. I personally don't see why I should pay for other peoples' housing, food, health care, edjumaction of their chillins, etc., but I do.
As long as 51% of the voters in the country are fools who vote for whatever party promises them the most plunder looted from the pockets of the hard working then we’re not going to get rid of wealth transfer.
What happens when the system collapses?
So what they are saying is that you have to be healthy in order to receive health care? And, if you are not healthy, they will refuse to let you have health care.
Eating unhealthy foods (as determined by yourself (you being the government at this point)) is voluntary. Under your system, those who eat unhealthy foods are now to be refused health care. Check.
Why would my examples be any less valid than yours?
I believe Margaret Thatcher said Socialism works until you run out of other peoples’ money to spend. Look at Greece a couple of years ago to see heat happens. Government seizing all assets over 100k euros or something like that blatant robbery
Not my system tootsie roll. The system we all have shoved upon us and under that system I'd rather NOT pay for other peoples' self inflicted problems.
For that matter I don't see what moral justification there is for making me pay for other peoples' kids. I didn't have any of the pleasure of screwing them out, and I'm pretty sure I would have remembered if some welfare queen came around and asked if it were OK to drop another litter on my dime.
I'm sure there are many more self inflicted maladies that can be added to the list. Who decides what is and is not acceptable behavior that will allow one to receive health care?
It's all garbage and yes it needs to be jettisoned, however, while it is here, if we begin to go down the slippery slope of denying coverage to subsets of Americans, perhaps that is a trigger that will finally get us to the endgame of government run health care, if not another civil war.
Dictatorships are born under such conditions.
I’ll answer..yes, in a collectivist system such as Obamacare, social security, medicare, etc., I think AIDS patients should be taken care of, else you turn it into a system wherein some bureaucrat can deny health coverage based not on whether a patient needs it, but on whether the bureaucrat wants to give it to him.
That is the start of a really bad tyrannical system that will start to kill people that are unneeded by the state.
Deny treatment to someone based on a value judgement and you’ll pretty soon stop covering people who eat red meat, or drive more than 10 miles a day, or drink beer, or surf, scuba dive or go on back-country hikes. Then drop treatment to anyone who has anger issues, then drop treatment to anyone who has stress, anxiety or isn’t in a happy family environment.
No, treatment should be based on whether a person needs it, not on whether they deserve it or not, else you’ll have some bean-counting thug denying treatment to some people and not to others and that’s gonna quickly turn into death panels and “it’s your duty to die.”
Note that I do not believe that surgical mutilation for mental illness fits into “needed treatment.”
Ed
I love your tag line, Laz!
Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.