Letter

imported post

The term "classical liberal" has come into vogue to distinguish between people who use the liberal label today and those who believe in the liberalism of the Founders. I am a conservative by today's labels and a classical liberal. I try to avoid saying that I am any kind of liberal because folks might think that I am a leftist.

imported post

OCforAll wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

Returning the respect you offered me.

I think perhaps we have a 'net misunderstanding.....

My post wasn't about "Liberals" because I understand what that term means.

I was pointing out that "Leftists" are those who want to control everyone else and have them live according to the "Leftist" belief system.... and, because in their own minds, they are so much above the ordinary unwashed masses they have divine direction... and divine authority... to insist everyone do what they are told to do by the Leftist.

A true "Liberal" according to the original meaning of the word "Liberal" could never be a "Leftist" but... over time the "Leftist" has taken and perverted the term "Liberal" in order to give themselves a semblance of respectability.

And the confusion (not to mention the ire of true "Liberals") of what the term "Liberal" means is a somewhat recent development historically speaking.

As for why the billionaire should be able to purchase health care to address his cancer and the store clerk shouldn't get the same health care as the billionaire because the store clerk can't afford it......... in the first place health care is not a right!!!!! health care is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder!!!!

Now..... please explain to me why the billionaire has the responsibility to pay (through taxes to the government) for the store clerks cancer treatments? Other than the touchy feely whine that "it's not fair!" what factual logic would apply?

Those who truly believe in this health care crap should immediately sell all their possessions and donate all their money to the nearest poor suffering person's health care... that way there will be no need for the government to bleed me dry to pay for someone else's ailments.

The thing that bugs me is so many people (perhaps not you personally) do not understand what a "right" really is... and having the rich pay for the poor's health care, or anything, is NOT a right because it is nothing less than the poor stealing from the rich cloaked in touchy feely sanctimonious selfishness of the "poor" wanting free stuff from the rich.

And the government isn't the knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the poor with free health care paid for by someone else without the consent of the one paying (mandated taxes is NOT consent) that it is BSing the world to think it is... The government doesn't give two farts in a windstorm about those poor suffering unfortunates... it only cares about getting control of the billions of dollars the health care industry generates every year... and the control over the people that control of the money represents.

Health care is NOT a right!!!!!! Getting something for nothing from someone who has something without their permission is NOT a "right"... it is theft!

Click to expand...

(I correctly guessed that would be your response.)

Saying health care is not a right is analogous to saying guns are not a right. As you well know, the word gun is nowhere to be found in 2A. Does government protection (i.e. tax dollars) not protect our "RIGHT" to own a gun? I'll give you a phrase that I'm sure you've heard before:


"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

If "Arms" = AR-15 then why doesn't "Life" = health?

If prisoners have a constitutional right to use tax dollars for health care, then why not the average citizen? Surely the founders did not foresee chemotherapy or organ transplant as being something a mass-murderer would have access to.


As far as the argument that health care goes to the highest bidder, that theory is illogical when applied to a hierarchical society. For starters, without the bottom tier of our citizen pyramid (ditch diggers, burger flippers, store clerks, etc.) there can be no Billionaires. Without the middle class the top tier has no one to watch the store or mind the workers. While it's certainly not a zero sum game, i.e. you can get rich without someone becoming poor, if the costs of said service becomes unreachable for the lower level then no, it's most certainly not fair.


Medicine has been designed, developed, and deployed by all classes, over thousands of years, and belongs to everyone. I've never made a million dollars in a year therefore I haven't earned the right to get an American Express Black Card. But my grandfather was a GS-15 so yes, I would deserve the same chemotherapy as Mr. Billionaire.


The disconnect with those who think health care only goes to the highest bidder doesn't realize that Mr. Billionare didn't become Mr. Billionare because he or she isn't lazy. I assure you that Mr. Gonzales flipping burgers works many more hours in a week than Mr. Billionare does. And before anyone says it, unless you sleep in a tepee and rides horses to slay buffalo, we are ALL here illegally folks.

Mr. Billionaire only got rich because he happened to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, during the right period of human history.
Anyone who thinks they got rich because they're so much smarter, better, or more hardworking than the next guy is a fool. Rich get rich because of a particular and unique set of circumstances of which they did not design. Big houses, fancy cars, material goods, sure, but not that which was built on the backs of all.


I'm sure there is an exception to the rule out there somewhere, but it always seems to be the people who have never seen the inside of bankruptcy court due to medical bills, or the lack of income one experiences when a spouse all of a sudden comes down with stage-4.

Tell me Mr. Billionaire has more or a right to live when it's your turn feed your mother like a baby because she's so weak from the chemo that she can't lift her arm. Ever leave the room so someone can wipe your parents ass? Been there my friend, and I can assure you that it's just north of whatever idea you might have of what horrible is really all about. And after they die you get to watch the other parent live with a bankruptcy, no credit, no money.


I never said the government is the knight in shining armor, but when you out-price the lower level of society for something that we all need, then you do have a problem.


And as far as those who make more money paying more taxes go, see above. You can't make that money unless you have the lower class, and under our progressive tax system I personally do not see a problem with paying en extra $50 grand for the next $1M someone makes. Now if you want to argue that too many of our tax dollars are getting pissed away on useless projects and we should get rid of them, well that's an entirely different subject.

Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment mentions "arms".
From:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms

arm[sup]2[/sup] play_w2("A0425900") (ärm)n.1. A weapon, especially a firearm:

and no.. the government does NOT protect my right to "keep and bear" arms... we the people have told the government with the 2nd Amendment that the government cannot take away that natural born right. The government did NOT give that right to the people... the people told the government to keep it's hands off! It is clear you do not understand what a "right" is.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ... yes indeed... you have the right to go out and make enough money to make you happy with the health care you can afford. Again, it is clear you do not understand what a "right" is.

Please give researchable cites as to the "constitutional right" of prisoners to use tax dollars for health care.

Hierarchical society? We do not have that although the leftists dearly want it so they can be the ruling elite... the truth is... you have the right to pursue your happiness by working hard enough to climb up the ladder and make yourself a billionaire rich enough to afford health care. Those who think a billionaire just happened to get lucky and didn't work his butt off to earn his money is a fool. And I expected to see you use the whine "it's not fair" but neglect to offer a logical argument to support your position.

I can assure you that medicine I paid to have researched, developed, manufactured, distributed, and sold... belongs to ME up to the moment it is sold. It is clear you do not understand what property rights are.

While I sympathize with the heartache of the tragedy you suffered in your own life please do not think that you are the only one tragedy has happened to.

I would not leave the room so someone could wipe my parent's ass.... I would be responsible and compassionate enough to do it myself! Anything less is more of the same cry baby whining of wanting someone else to do all the work while the elitist thinks they are above such things. And yes, I've wiped the asses of sick people a time or two and considered it a labor of love. And had my parents.. or even one parent.. survived long enough to not have had enough money to live or afford health care I, the son, would take them into my own home and care for them so they would live a comfortable life even with a bankruptcy, no credit, and no money because I would supply their needs and wants. As a matter of fact I'm doing something quite similar for someone who isn't a family member but is financially disadvantaged... without government assistance asked for or wanted.

"Life (we have the right to live.. not the right to live in a manner some think they are entitled to.. or the health care some think they are entitled to), liberty (do you understand that "liberty" also means being free from other people expecting someone else to support them?), and the "pursuit of happiness" (do you understand that really means get off your ass and go earn your own billions of dollars to buy your own health care instead of expecting someone else to give it to you for free?)

I tire of trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand what a "right" is and who thinks there is a "right for life to be "fair" ... especially when "fair" means they profit from taking things from other people... There is only so much whiny self pity poor me crying wrapped in emotional arguments based in leftist selfishness I can stand.

Have a good day Sir.

To all the good folks who do understand what "rights" are I apologize for allowing myself to be sucked into yet another "Johnny come lately" Leftist's drivel.:banghead:

With that I'm through responding to this transparent attempt to push the leftist agenda.

imported post

Bikenut wrote:

OCforAll wrote:

Bikenut wrote:

Returning the respect you offered me.

I think perhaps we have a 'net misunderstanding.....

My post wasn't about "Liberals" because I understand what that term means.

I was pointing out that "Leftists" are those who want to control everyone else and have them live according to the "Leftist" belief system.... and, because in their own minds, they are so much above the ordinary unwashed masses they have divine direction... and divine authority... to insist everyone do what they are told to do by the Leftist.

A true "Liberal" according to the original meaning of the word "Liberal" could never be a "Leftist" but... over time the "Leftist" has taken and perverted the term "Liberal" in order to give themselves a semblance of respectability.

And the confusion (not to mention the ire of true "Liberals") of what the term "Liberal" means is a somewhat recent development historically speaking.

As for why the billionaire should be able to purchase health care to address his cancer and the store clerk shouldn't get the same health care as the billionaire because the store clerk can't afford it......... in the first place health care is not a right!!!!! health care is a commodity for sale to the highest bidder!!!!

Now..... please explain to me why the billionaire has the responsibility to pay (through taxes to the government) for the store clerks cancer treatments? Other than the touchy feely whine that "it's not fair!" what factual logic would apply?

Those who truly believe in this health care crap should immediately sell all their possessions and donate all their money to the nearest poor suffering person's health care... that way there will be no need for the government to bleed me dry to pay for someone else's ailments.

The thing that bugs me is so many people (perhaps not you personally) do not understand what a "right" really is... and having the rich pay for the poor's health care, or anything, is NOT a right because it is nothing less than the poor stealing from the rich cloaked in touchy feely sanctimonious selfishness of the "poor" wanting free stuff from the rich.

And the government isn't the knight in shining armor coming to the aid of the poor with free health care paid for by someone else without the consent of the one paying (mandated taxes is NOT consent) that it is BSing the world to think it is... The government doesn't give two farts in a windstorm about those poor suffering unfortunates... it only cares about getting control of the billions of dollars the health care industry generates every year... and the control over the people that control of the money represents.

Health care is NOT a right!!!!!! Getting something for nothing from someone who has something without their permission is NOT a "right"... it is theft!

Click to expand...

(I correctly guessed that would be your response.)

Saying health care is not a right is analogous to saying guns are not a right. As you well know, the word gun is nowhere to be found in 2A. Does government protection (i.e. tax dollars) not protect our "RIGHT" to own a gun? I'll give you a phrase that I'm sure you've heard before:


"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

If "Arms" = AR-15 then why doesn't "Life" = health?

If prisoners have a constitutional right to use tax dollars for health care, then why not the average citizen? Surely the founders did not foresee chemotherapy or organ transplant as being something a mass-murderer would have access to.


As far as the argument that health care goes to the highest bidder, that theory is illogical when applied to a hierarchical society. For starters, without the bottom tier of our citizen pyramid (ditch diggers, burger flippers, store clerks, etc.) there can be no Billionaires. Without the middle class the top tier has no one to watch the store or mind the workers. While it's certainly not a zero sum game, i.e. you can get rich without someone becoming poor, if the costs of said service becomes unreachable for the lower level then no, it's most certainly not fair.


Medicine has been designed, developed, and deployed by all classes, over thousands of years, and belongs to everyone. I've never made a million dollars in a year therefore I haven't earned the right to get an American Express Black Card. But my grandfather was a GS-15 so yes, I would deserve the same chemotherapy as Mr. Billionaire.


The disconnect with those who think health care only goes to the highest bidder doesn't realize that Mr. Billionare didn't become Mr. Billionare because he or she isn't lazy. I assure you that Mr. Gonzales flipping burgers works many more hours in a week than Mr. Billionare does. And before anyone says it, unless you sleep in a tepee and rides horses to slay buffalo, we are ALL here illegally folks.

Mr. Billionaire only got rich because he happened to be the right person, in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, during the right period of human history.
Anyone who thinks they got rich because they're so much smarter, better, or more hardworking than the next guy is a fool. Rich get rich because of a particular and unique set of circumstances of which they did not design. Big houses, fancy cars, material goods, sure, but not that which was built on the backs of all.


I'm sure there is an exception to the rule out there somewhere, but it always seems to be the people who have never seen the inside of bankruptcy court due to medical bills, or the lack of income one experiences when a spouse all of a sudden comes down with stage-4.

Tell me Mr. Billionaire has more or a right to live when it's your turn feed your mother like a baby because she's so weak from the chemo that she can't lift her arm. Ever leave the room so someone can wipe your parents ass? Been there my friend, and I can assure you that it's just north of whatever idea you might have of what horrible is really all about. And after they die you get to watch the other parent live with a bankruptcy, no credit, no money.


I never said the government is the knight in shining armor, but when you out-price the lower level of society for something that we all need, then you do have a problem.


And as far as those who make more money paying more taxes go, see above. You can't make that money unless you have the lower class, and under our progressive tax system I personally do not see a problem with paying en extra $50 grand for the next $1M someone makes. Now if you want to argue that too many of our tax dollars are getting pissed away on useless projects and we should get rid of them, well that's an entirely different subject.

Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment mentions "arms".
From:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms

arm[sup] 2[/sup] play_w2("A0425900") (ärm)n.1. A weapon, especially a firearm:

and no.. the government does NOT protect my right to "keep and bear" arms... we the people have told the government with the 2nd Amendment that the government cannot take away that natural born right. The government did NOT give that right to the people... the people told the government to keep it's hands off! It is clear you do not understand what a "right" is.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ... yes indeed... you have the right to go out and make enough money to make you happy with the health care you can afford. Again, it is clear you do not understand what a "right" is.

Please give researchable cites as to the "constitutional right" of prisoners to use tax dollars for health care.

Hierarchical society? We do not have that although the leftists dearly want it so they can be the ruling elite... the truth is... you have the right to pursue your happiness by working hard enough to climb up the ladder and make yourself a billionaire rich enough to afford health care. Those who think a billionaire just happened to get lucky and didn't work his butt off to earn his money is a fool. And I expected to see you use the whine "it's not fair" but neglect to offer a logical argument to support your position.

I can assure you that medicine I paid to have researched, developed, manufactured, distributed, and sold... belongs to ME up to the moment it is sold. It is clear you do not understand what property rights are.

While I sympathize with the heartache of the tragedy you suffered in your own life please do not think that you are the only one tragedy has happened to.

I would not leave the room so someone could wipe my parent's ass.... I would be responsible and compassionate enough to do it myself! Anything less is more of the same cry baby whining of wanting someone else to do all the work while the elitist thinks they are above such things. And yes, I've wiped the asses of sick people a time or two and considered it a labor of love. And had my parents.. or even one parent.. survived long enough to not have had enough money to live or afford health care I, the son, would take them into my own home and care for them so they would live a comfortable life even with a bankruptcy, no credit, and no money because I would supply their needs and wants. As a matter of fact I'm doing something quite similar for someone who isn't a family member but is financially disadvantaged... without government assistance asked for or wanted.

"Life (we have the right to live.. not the right to live in a manner some think they are entitled to.. or the health care some think they are entitled to), liberty (do you understand that "liberty" also means being free from other people expecting someone else to support them?), and the "pursuit of happiness" (do you understand that really means get off your ass and go earn your own billions of dollars to buy your own health care instead of expecting someone else to give it to you for free?)

I tire of trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't understand what a "right" is and who thinks there is a "right for life to be "fair" ... especially when "fair" means they profit from taking things from other people...  There is only so much whiny self pity poor me crying wrapped in emotional arguments based in leftist selfishness I can stand.

Have a good day Sir.

To all the good folks who do understand what "rights" are I apologize for allowing myself to be sucked into yet another "Johnny come lately" Leftist's drivel.:banghead:

With that I'm through responding to this transparent attempt to push the leftist agenda.

Click to expand...

Nice response. I'll refrain from calling you any names or flaming you for your position (like you did me), but your remark "Anything less is more of the same cry baby whining of wanting someone else to do all the work while the elitist thinks they are above such things" was pretty douchebag-ish and completely uncalled for. Whatever...

I say that families shouldn't have to go bankrupt due to illness and you use words that suggest anything other than the rest of the family taking over smells of a welfare state. Of course, you obviously neglected to consider that's not an option for the vast majority of people.


Not providing medical care to prisoners is a violation of 8A, is it not?

While we have the right to "climb up the ladder", that is flawed logic when applied to the idea to medical care. No, not everyone can climb the ladder to wealth. It's simply not possible, nor would you want it to be. People are not born with the same minds, skin color, gender, family, geographical locations, or anyone of the many traits that create available opportunity.


It has nothing to do with hard work or how smart you are. I actually know a billionaire and have spent personal time with their family. I can assure you that obtaining that level of wealth has more to do with timing & luck than it does anything else. Bill Gates born in 1970 will not be Warren Buffets bridge partner in 2010.

If you truly believe that the government has no business handing out health care and that it isn't/shouldn't be a burden on the taxpayer, perhaps you could run down to your local VA hospital or Hospice House and hand out literature stating your position on the subject. I disagree with you and think the burger flippers of our land should have same health care as all the veterans in my family get.

imported post

OCforAll - just ...WOW!

Do you actually carry a firearm? Do you OC? It would help if you at least provided the state you reside in in your profile ...

Just so I can gain some perspective on your opinions, would you mind telling how old you are? And where you were educated?

I am not calling any names here, but some of what you say reeks to me of entitlement.

Please don't take offense in what I write.

imported post

OCforAll,

The reason the government provides the health care of inmates is simple. The government has the duty to remove and detain those who have violated the laws of it's purview(i.e. local,state,and federal). The government is therefore forced to maintain their health while they are in the custody or if you prefer that they are the "responsibility" of the government. I think you would have to agree it was not those who would normally be referred to as "Conservative" who deemed this meant providing the broad definitionofhealth care now commonly bandied around today. It wasn't Conservative judges that stated inmates had the "right" to sex change hormones, etc.. As far the government "providing" the same health care to the ex-store clerk as the billionaire, we are a capitalist society. It is not the duty of the government to maintain the health care of it's citizen's since they are not it's responsibility. On a personal note I prefer it that way. The government has already stated that it believes a company has the right to fire someone for smoking(which is not illegal) since the company provides the cost of health care for the employee. Is it so hard to believe that this same government if it provides the cost of it's citizens health care can't then decide it has the power to decide if your diet is to high in fat, sodium, or other things it deems unhealthy.

As to your point of veterans. All veterans understand that the health care offered to us is in exchange for our service to the protection of the country.To be quite honest I am a veteran and I have never used the VA because it is government run health care. Believe me the level of health care provided by the average VA hospital is far below that of any private hospital. You want equality in health care put your billionaire and ex-clerk in a VA hospital then they can both suffer equally.

imported post

okboomer wrote:

OCforAll - just ... WOW!

Do you actually carry a firearm? Do you OC? It would help if you at least provided the state you reside in in your profile ...

Just so I can gain some perspective on your opinions, would you mind telling how old you are? And where you were educated?

I am not calling any names here, but some of what you say reeks to me of entitlement.

Please don't take offense in what I write.

Click to expand...

Well, you asked so I'll answer...

Without getting too personal: I'm in my 40's, live in OH, and just recently found out about OC. I've been self-employed since I was a minor (except for a year+ in a labor union while still a teenager), and have employed more than 10 people at one time and on several occasions have not taken a pay check (once for more than five years) rather than lay off employees.

By educated I'm assuming you are asking me where I went to college? Never did.

For some perspective: I believe in personal responsibility but I also know that not everyone is in a position to achieve success on their own. The fact that the most Americans don't even know that they have a right to remain silent AT ALL TIMES, should be proof enough that we are not brought up with any road maps. Our schools teach us nothing useful as far as I see it. Go look at a HS history book and how they teach nothing more than bullet points. Most major events which have shaped the world over the past 100 years are pretty much unknown to the vast majority of people.

While I do have a problem with the uneducated and unemployed opening up their own private puppy mills, I know enough about history to understand that it's the "uneducated" part that causes this problem, and ever since we switched to a public school system things have gone downhill. Read "The Underground History Of American Education".

Some people need assistance, but it is not a free ride and must come with conditions. Women must be on birth control, all people should pass drug tests, proof of job applications and/or spending the day in school/library, repayment of funds upon employment, etc. The problem isn't with the people who collect welfare, but rather with the way the entire system is designed. You can't release a person into the world at age 17/18 with no education or understanding of reality. I went to public school and they never even taught the true value of a good credit score.

Our prison system is the same way. Rather than spend $70 a day housing a drug addict it makes far more sense (for the rest of us) to put them into a half-way house where they can't get out until they have a college degree and a job. Expunge their record upon completion and give them a do-over.


I believe in Social Darwinism when put in the context that people should be left alone to do with their bodies as they see fit, so long as it doesn't affect others. e.g. If someone wants to shoot drugs then let them. Just don't use public resources when you OD. Rob granny because you need the next fix then your lungs stop moving. Two guys want to duel it out with their Sigs because they don't like the color of each others t-shirt, then set up an arena and let me pay $50 to watch. Want to tell two gay dudes they can't get married, then I should be able to tell you that you can't get married (also something the government should have no part in). Marriage is nothing but a government-sanctioned corporation, hence the reason you need a license.

In short, the government, or anyone else for that matter, has no business telling anyone what to do with their life, "unless" that person comes looking for help and is willing to do the work. Then the government should have the right to tell them precisely how to live their life.

I believe any politician who wants to take away your gun(s) should have to come to your door in person, unarmed, and force you to do so. I also believe all non-individual entities should be taxed, i.e. Churches, non-profits, etc. I don't care who you pray to, but if you're making money then you better be paying taxes. I do not believe in tax brakes for anyone or any thing. I feel that every person, in every state, should be paying the same. i.e. same sales tax, same property tax, same everything. I believe in a progressive tax system like the one we have, something that the majority of people don't understand, have no idea how it works, and never educate themselves on.

As far a health care goes: POTUS, members of SCOTUS, Congress, Veterans, LEO, CEO's, office suits, Warran Buffett, me, you, etc. have no more right to medicine, surgery, chemo, or life-saving care than anyone else does. While Amgen, Pfizer, J&J, etc. may be corporations, they only exist because the people gave them the right to do so. All things modern exist because of all things past. While I wholeheartedly believe in free enterprise (obviously), I do not believe that life-saving drugs belong to only those who can afford them. Not all people have the money or resources.

Another argument would be this: If my tax dollars are spent on things that I do not agree with, by people I did not elect, and those same people gave a drug company tax breaks, special deals, or anything else for that matter, and all of a sudden I need their drug to stay alive but my income level prohibits it, then why on earth shouldn't I have access to their property?

They exist BECAUSE of the people and have taken tax dollars in one way or another, so if they have the magic potion that keeps my kid alive and I can't afford it, then hand it the f-over. I think that's about as basic as it gets.

imported post

SavageOne wrote:

OCforAll,

The reason the government provides the health care of inmates is simple. The government has the duty to remove and detain those who have violated the laws of it's purview(i.e. local,state,and federal). The government is therefore forced to maintain their health while they are in the custody or if you prefer that they are the  "responsibility" of the government. I think you would have to agree it was not those who would normally be referred to as "Conservative" who deemed this meant providing the broad definition of health care now commonly bandied around today. It wasn't Conservative judges that stated inmates had the "right" to sex change hormones, etc..   As far the government "providing" the same health care to the ex-store clerk as the billionaire, we are a capitalist society. It is not the duty of the government to maintain the health care of it's citizen's since they are not it's responsibility. On a personal note I prefer it that way. The government has already stated that it believes a company has the right to fire someone for smoking(which is not illegal) since the company provides the cost of health care for the employee. Is it so hard to believe that this same government if it provides the cost of it's citizens health care can't then decide it has the power to decide if your diet is to high in fat, sodium, or other things it deems unhealthy.

As to your point of veterans.  All veterans understand that the health care offered to us is in exchange for our service to the protection of the country. To be quite honest I am a veteran and I have never used the VA because it is government run health care. Believe me the level of health care provided by the average VA hospital is far below that of any private hospital. You want equality in health care put your billionaire and ex-clerk in a VA hospital then they can both suffer equally.

 

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying and for the most part share your views, but I'm not referring to health care in terms of going to the doctor every month because someone can't put down the twinkies. I feel that anyone who smokes, drinks too much, doesn't understand how calories work, etc. should not be able to get health insurance. And mind you, I fall into that category, but when it comes to life-saving and preventative care, then we're all in the same boat as far as I see it. I'm somewhat extreme in certain areas, such as if a 20-year smoker needs a lung transplant then I think they should be refused. If I need a quadruple bypass because I'm 100 lbs. overweight (which I am) then I should be denied unless I can afford it on my own. But if that same smoker or my fat ass comes down with pancreatic cancer and we need that new drug to extend life another few years but can't afford it because Amgen wants $500k an ounce, then that's where the line needs to be drawn in my opnion.

As far as the VA goes, unfortunately I have not earned the right to walk into their buildings. My father has high praise for the VA though, as do other family members. I've also heard the opposite from some friends living elsewhere, so maybe it's the actual location and not the institution?

imported post

OCforAll wrote:

SavageOne wrote:

OCforAll,

The reason the government provides the health care of inmates is simple. The government has the duty to remove and detain those who have violated the laws of it's purview(i.e. local,state,and federal). The government is therefore forced to maintain their health while they are in the custody or if you prefer that they are the "responsibility" of the government. I think you would have to agree it was not those who would normally be referred to as "Conservative" who deemed this meant providing the broad definitionofhealth care now commonly bandied around today. It wasn't Conservative judges that stated inmates had the "right" to sex change hormones, etc.. As far the government "providing" the same health care to the ex-store clerk as the billionaire, we are a capitalist society. It is not the duty of the government to maintain the health care of it's citizen's since they are not it's responsibility. On a personal note I prefer it that way. The government has already stated that it believes a company has the right to fire someone for smoking(which is not illegal) since the company provides the cost of health care for the employee. Is it so hard to believe that this same government if it provides the cost of it's citizens health care can't then decide it has the power to decide if your diet is to high in fat, sodium, or other things it deems unhealthy.

As to your point of veterans. All veterans understand that the health care offered to us is in exchange for our service to the protection of the country.To be quite honest I am a veteran and I have never used the VA because it is government run health care. Believe me the level of health care provided by the average VA hospital is far below that of any private hospital. You want equality in health care put your billionaire and ex-clerk in a VA hospital then they can both suffer equally.

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying and for the most part share your views, but I'm not referring to health care in terms of going to the doctor every month because someone can't put down the twinkies. I feel that anyone who smokes, drinks too much, doesn't understand how calories work, etc. should not be able to get health insurance. And mind you, I fall into that category, but when it comes to life-saving and preventative care, then we're all in the same boat as far as I see it. I'm somewhat extreme in certain areas, such as if a 20-year smoker needs a lung transplant then I think they should be refused. If I need a quadruple bypass because I'm 100 lbs. overweight (which I am) then I should be denied unless I can afford it on my own. But if that same smoker or my fat ass comes down with pancreatic cancer and we need that new drug to extend life another few years but can't afford it because Amgen wants $500k an ounce, then that's where the line needs to be drawn in my opnion.

As far as the VA goes, unfortunately I have not earned the right to walk into their buildings. My father has high praise for the VA though, as do other family members. I've also heard the opposite from some friends living elsewhere, so maybe it's the actual location and not the institution?

Click to expand...

No one made Amgen develop that drug that cost $500k an ounce. They will have done it because they feel there is a market and a good profit potential. If the government can tell a company what it can charge for a drug it spent it's private money to develop, companies will not develop drugs that may look promising but may be expensive. My personal view of "Big Pharm" is that they are scum sucking bastards(I mean this in the best possible way), but as long as they use their own profits that's their right.

As for the VA . My father had a terrible car wreck 25 some odd years ago. He made them take his pain meds away because he was afraid to become dependant to a pill. The VA has managed over the years to turn him a man who drags around a bag of pills he's sure are necessary. The VA scuffles doctors throughthe hospital and put a huge workload on them. Apparently it's easier to give pops a "script" and send him on his way than it is to actually find out what's wrong. Just to give another example of their "care". My father fought and won(thank God) a battle with prostate cancer. On one of my fathers scheduled visit they tell him that his PSA is so high that his cancer is back. On his next visit as the doctor is leaving my father asks about his cancer. The same doctor who told him his cancer was back looks at his newest PSA and says "you don't have cancer". My father tells him you told me last time that I did. The doctor looks at his chart and says as he leaves they must have mixed up your chart. Next visit they tell him "Oh by the way your PSA is up again.:banghead::banghead::banghead: Dealing with the VA has shown me there is very little caring in government health care.

imported post

OCforAll wrote:

SavageOne wrote:

OCforAll,

The reason the government provides the health care of inmates is simple. The government has the duty to remove and detain those who have violated the laws of it's purview(i.e. local,state,and federal). The government is therefore forced to maintain their health while they are in the custody or if you prefer that they are the "responsibility" of the government. I think you would have to agree it was not those who would normally be referred to as "Conservative" who deemed this meant providing the broad definitionofhealth care now commonly bandied around today. It wasn't Conservative judges that stated inmates had the "right" to sex change hormones, etc.. As far the government "providing" the same health care to the ex-store clerk as the billionaire, we are a capitalist society. It is not the duty of the government to maintain the health care of it's citizen's since they are not it's responsibility. On a personal note I prefer it that way. The government has already stated that it believes a company has the right to fire someone for smoking(which is not illegal) since the company provides the cost of health care for the employee. Is it so hard to believe that this same government if it provides the cost of it's citizens health care can't then decide it has the power to decide if your diet is to high in fat, sodium, or other things it deems unhealthy.

As to your point of veterans. All veterans understand that the health care offered to us is in exchange for our service to the protection of the country.To be quite honest I am a veteran and I have never used the VA because it is government run health care. Believe me the level of health care provided by the average VA hospital is far below that of any private hospital. You want equality in health care put your billionaire and ex-clerk in a VA hospital then they can both suffer equally.

Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying and for the most part share your views, but I'm not referring to health care in terms of going to the doctor every month because someone can't put down the twinkies. I feel that anyone who smokes, drinks too much, doesn't understand how calories work, etc. should not be able to get health insurance. And mind you, I fall into that category, but when it comes to life-saving and preventative care, then we're all in the same boat as far as I see it. I'm somewhat extreme in certain areas, such as if a 20-year smoker needs a lung transplant then I think they should be refused. If I need a quadruple bypass because I'm 100 lbs. overweight (which I am) then I should be denied unless I can afford it on my own. But if that same smoker or my fat ass comes down with pancreatic cancer and we need that new drug to extend life another few years but can't afford it because Amgen wants $500k an ounce, then that's where the line needs to be drawn in my opnion.

As far as the VA goes, unfortunately I have not earned the right to walk into their buildings. My father has high praise for the VA though, as do other family members. I've also heard the opposite from some friends living elsewhere, so maybe it's the actual location and not the institution?

Click to expand...

OCforAll,

You contradict yourself several times over in this last posting.

You state that you feel that anyone that participates in activity that is hazardous to their health or falls into an unhealthy category should not be able to get health insurance. But then turn around and seem to say that you believe everyone should have access to expensive life saving meds.

You say that you should be refused quadruple by-pass surgery which would correct a life threatening heart condition, because you are over weight. But then you claim that you should be able to have access (even if you can't afford it) to life saving drugs.

It appears to me that although you may claim to be a libertarian, you sound like an anti-capitalist. You have more than once attacked the big pharma's because they don't offer their meds cheap enough for everyone to afford. The same meds they spend millions in R&D to create with the hopes of eventually recouping those investments (R&D dollars) with some profit. They only have a few years to recoup that investment before the smaller pharm's come out with cheaper (they don't have R&D dollars to recoup) generic versions of the same meds.

Apparently, you must believe that the pharmacutial companies should just eat the moneis they spend on R&D. Well, if that's what they were to have to do, there wouldn't be any R&D, or new breakthroughs in medicine.

And let's not forget, that these same big pharma's also spend millions in R&D trying to find treatments for ailments that only a tiny percentage of the population are inflicted with.

You may think that everyone should be able to have access to affordablehealth insurance coverage. Health care itself might not be as expensive today if it weren't for health insurance. I've often wondered if health care providers would charge as much as they do if they weren't fairly certain that they could get the fees they demand. I don't believe they'd charge as much if there weren't insurance companies that were paying the bills.

You know, there was a time in this country when people who didn't have much (if any) money could barter with their physician for services rendered. Not many doctors back then were inthe proffessionfor the money.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

OCforAll,

You contradict yourself several times over in this last posting.

You state that you feel that anyone that participates in activity that is hazardous to their health or falls into an unhealthy category should not be able to get health insurance. But then turn around and seem to say that you believe everyone should have access to expensive life saving meds.

You say that you should be refused quadruple by-pass surgery which would correct a life threatening heart condition, because you are over weight. But then you claim that you should be able to have access (even if you can't afford it) to life saving drugs.

It appears to me that although you may claim to be a libertarian, you sound like an anti-capitalist. You have more than once attacked the big pharma's because they don't offer their meds cheap enough for everyone to afford. The same meds they spend millions in R&D to create with the hopes of eventually recouping those investments (R&D dollars) with some profit. They only have a few years to recoup that investment before the smaller pharm's come out with cheaper (they don't have R&D dollars to recoup) generic versions of the same meds.

Apparently, you must believe that the pharmacutial companies should just eat the moneis they spend on R&D. Well, if that's what they were to have to do, there wouldn't be any R&D, or new breakthroughs in medicine.

And let's not forget, that these same big pharma's also spend millions in R&D trying to find treatments for ailments that only a tiny percentage of the population are inflicted with.

You may think that everyone should be able to have access to affordable health insurance coverage. Health care itself might not be as expensive today if it weren't for health insurance. I've often wondered if health care providers would charge as much as they do if they weren't fairly certain that they could get the fees they demand. I don't believe they'd charge as much if there weren't insurance companies that were paying the bills.

You know, there was a time in this country when people who didn't have much (if any) money could barter with their physician for services rendered.  Not many doctors back then were in the proffession for the money.

Click to expand...

You didn't read what I said. I did not contradict myself and never once used the word libertarian. Libertarians believe in either minimal or no government. The only thing I said was that I am liberal, meaning that I am open minded and tolerant of others lifestyles. And before it comes, I did not say that I am "A" Liberal. There is a huge difference.

Saying that we who live unhealthy lifestyles should not be allowed health insurance (i.e. have the insurance company draw from the pool to cover our health care costs), is not the same as saying everyone should have access to life-saving medicine for unrelated diseases. My example of Pancreatic cancer should have made this obvious. Before that I even said that related illnesses should only be paid for if the person can afford it on their own.

While drug companies do in fact spend millions of dollars on R&D, they have also taken tax breaks, made deals with politicians, and used on public resources in one way or another. I never said the drugs should be free. What I said was is if they have the magic potion to keep my kid alive, and I can't afford it because the bank I worked for went belly up due to some jerk-off betting on credit default swaps and I don't have coverage anymore, then the same government who gave those companies the tax breaks they'll be enjoying for the next 20 years should walk over and get me some.

A corporation using up public resources to invent miracle drugs is not the same animal as joe's sub shop.