Spoken like a true liberal

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No they don't.  That is the biggest problem in getting them to understand.  In this country people get emergency medical care even if they don't have insurance or money.  Those services are currently absorbed by the rest of the money paid by people who do have money or health insurance.

A government run program should be cheaper because the health insurance industry is making billions of dollars a year.  The government may not be as efficient as a private company, but it should still be able to cover costs at a lower level as a non profit. 

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies are against it because they fear the government would have too much leverage with close to a monopoly on the health care market.  I can understand their apprehension, but I don't see the government stepping on too many of the big money toes that feed it with tax revenue.  So the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry would be the only real victim.  They still hold enough clout to get us the ACA instead of a government ran program.

What is medicaid?

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-27-2015, 02:10 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: No, they shouldn't be denied police services. 

Why not? You don't wanna pay for healthcare for anyone who doesn't pay taxes. Why do you not mind paying for their police protection?

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-27-2015, 02:18 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What evidence is there that we'd be paying less?

The evidence is understanding the word "profit".

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-27-2015, 04:39 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What does that have to do with the price of rice?

A publicly-traded corporation has stockholders and a board of directors to answer to, not to mention private citizens. 

Government has none of this, outside of voters, who by and large either shrug their shoulders at failed programs or wasteful spending because "that's just the way it goes", or they falsely state that there's every bit as much fraud and corruption in the private sector. 

you literally just said nothing.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 07:35 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Why not? You don't wanna pay for healthcare for anyone who doesn't pay taxes. Why do you not mind paying for their police protection?

Has nothing to do with not wanting to pay for anyone's healthcare that doesn't pay taxes.  I don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare, period. 

As to your second point, why is it so hard for you to grasp the point that I have a vested interest in my community having a strong police presence and a crime-free area to live in?  Besides your hyperbolic argument that my family might die of some mysterious infectious disease if my entire neighborhood doesn't have a taxpayer-funded health care plan, I've yet to hear any rational argument that refutes mine. 

Again, public safety is at the very top of the list of responsibilities of government, especially at the local level.  You can make your argument that healthcare is a public safety issue as well if you want to, but I don't agree.  We already have a plan to provide medical care for the poor, and MOST emergency rooms will write-off emergency room visits for the indigent. 

I see this stuff as nothing more than people who want someone else to pay for their stuff. 

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 09:22 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: you literally just said nothing.

Your rebuttal says hi.  

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-27-2015, 09:30 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Has nothing to do with not wanting to pay for anyone's healthcare that doesn't pay taxes.  I don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare, period. 

As to your second point, why is it so hard for you to grasp the point that I have a vested interest in my community having a strong police presence and a crime-free area to live in?  Besides your hyperbolic argument that my family might die of some mysterious infectious disease if my entire neighborhood doesn't have a taxpayer-funded health care plan, I've yet to hear any rational argument that refutes mine. 

Again, public safety is at the very top of the list of responsibilities of government, especially at the local level.  You can make your argument that healthcare is a public safety issue as well if you want to, but I don't agree.  We already have a plan to provide medical care for the poor, and MOST emergency rooms will write-off emergency room visits for the indigent. 

I see this stuff as nothing more than people who want someone else to pay for their stuff. 

If some homeless guy on the opposite end of your county who doesn't pay any taxes (which is evidently your definition of humanity its self) gets beaten up, how is it in your vested interest for the police to do anything for him? By the way, why do you believe that the government should run based upon your vested interest?

"Mysterious" infectious disease? I guess Google was too tough for your enterprising, self-made, hard-working 'Murican self, eh?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 09:46 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: If some homeless guy on the opposite end of your county who doesn't pay any taxes (which is evidently your definition of humanity its self) gets beaten up, how is it in your vested interest for the police to do anything for him?

There is a large difference between the police responding due to a result of a crime and someone not having healthcare. 

Healthcare is a for-profit business, no matter how much you hate that or wish that weren't the case.  Police departments are public agencies. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-27-2015, 10:02 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: There is a large difference between the police responding due to a result of a crime and someone not having healthcare. 

Healthcare is a for-profit business, no matter how much you hate that or wish that weren't the case.  Police departments are public agencies. 

Well no ***** shit. The question is whether healthcare (and police departments) SHOULD BE a for-profit business.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 11:11 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Well no ***** shit. The question is whether healthcare (and police departments) SHOULD BE a for-profit business.

How much private money do police departments spend to aid in the prevention or solving of crimes compared to the health care industry?  

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-27-2015, 11:29 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: How much private money do police departments spend to aid in the prevention or solving of crimes compared to the health care industry?  

Dude, once again, we are debating "is" vs. "ought". Your question is worthless.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 11:32 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Dude, once again, we are debating "is" vs. "ought". Your question is worthless.

You're the one advocating for such a thing.

I think it would be relevant for YOU to make the argument for such a thing. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-27-2015, 11:34 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: You're the one advocating for such a thing.

I think it would be relevant for YOU to make the argument for such a thing. 

I'm advocating for what thing? Public healthcare? Yes, on the same basis that you admitted you advocate public policing.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 11:36 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I'm advocating for what thing? Public healthcare? Yes, on the same basis that you admitted you advocate public policing.

Again I'm still awaiting for you to correlate why people are vested in the healthcare of others to the same degree as they are the safety of others. 

If we're going to go with a collectivist society, in which we are all vested in the health and well-being of others, do we also get to:

1) Tell other people what they can eat?

2) Tell other people that they can't drink or smoke?

3) Limit the calorie intake of people?

4) Force other people to exercise?

5) Forced sterilization of those that cannot financially take care of a child?

Just curious what your thoughts are.  For the record, I'm not in favor of any of those things, but seeing as how you seem to be an advocate for a collective America, I wondered where you draw the line between what is good for the collective and personal liberty. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-27-2015, 11:42 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Again I'm still awaiting for you to correlate why people are vested in the healthcare of others to the same degree as they are the safety of others. 

And again I'm still waiting for you to notice the irony of you differentiating "health" and "safety".

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-28-2015, 11:26 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: And again I'm still waiting for you to notice the irony of you differentiating "health" and "safety".

Health - my next door neighbor having migraine headaches

Safety- my next door neighbor is a meth dealer

Which one poses more of a threat to my personal liberty, safety, and security?

[SteelCitySouth]

(08-27-2015, 09:34 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Your rebuttal says hi.  

how do you you rebut nothing?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-29-2015, 06:54 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: how do you you rebut nothing?

I would ignore a post if I thought it said nothing, but that's just me. 

[fredtoast]

(08-28-2015, 11:36 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Which one poses more of a threat to my personal liberty, safety, and security?

There are certain things we do because we are humans who care about other humans.

Not everything the government does is 100% profit driven.  If so then slavery would still be legal.  So would child labor.  There would be no foodstamps and people would be starving and eating out of dumps.  Many citizens would be living in unsanitary ghetto conditions.

When a society is thriving the less fortunate should not be left behind to suffer.  It just isn't the humane thing to do.

I am not talking about an idealistic world where everyone is equal.  I just want the people who have amassed incredible amounts of wealth to pay a very small potion so that all of society thrives.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-30-2015, 01:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are certain things we do because we are humans who care about other humans.

Yes, it's called charity, not forced confiscation of the belongings of another by mother government.