First Test for New Health Care Bill

Originally posted by spruce112358
Yes. And until the rules are changed, it remains my money. Not yours.

Primitive cultures don't treat aging as a sickness.

The rules are that you get to keep as much of it as society allows. The rules are that if the majority of people decide, by their votes in free democratic elections, that everyone is going to get health care when they are sick and that some people's taxes will have to be raised to pay for it, that's the way it is.

How do you like the rules so far?

Primitive cultures tend to their aged when they are sick, too. They don't leave them to die as you apparently prefer our affluent culture to.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Not at all. It's a vote for common sense.

Do imagine that by giving doctors more money you can avoid death? You can't. Spend billions, trillions, more. Beg, borrow, steal -- it does't matter. People will STILL die.

The medical community treats aging as a sickness BECAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY OFF IT!!! They are playing the capitalist and YOU the self-proclaimed socialist are defending them GETTING RICH!!

You really don't get it, do you?

What's your big hurry for old people to die? If treatment extends their and other people's lives, what's your problem with it? That it might cost you a few bucks?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Not at all. It's a vote for common sense.

Do imagine that by giving doctors more money you can avoid death? You can't. Spend billions, trillions, more. Beg, borrow, steal -- it does't matter. People will STILL die.

The medical community treats aging as a sickness BECAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY OFF IT!!! They are playing the capitalist and YOU the self-proclaimed socialist are defending them GETTING RICH!!

You really don't get it, do you?

Good point, in every country people live to exactly the same age and have the same chances of recovering from every illness.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What's your big hurry for old people to die? If treatment extends their and other people's lives, what's your problem with it? That it might cost you a few bucks?

when did he imply he was in a hurry for old people to die?

its funny how you make ridiculous statements when losing an argument.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The problem is over-regulation of who can supply healthcare.

You are right! I found myself a Medical Doctor degree inside a
Cocoa Puffs cereal box, and I am burning to use it on some fatsos
who would give me thousands of bucks for removing their grease
with my Osterizer vacuum machine.

Down with regulation! Laissez-faire! Woo hoo!

Originally posted by generalissimo
when did he imply he was in a hurry for old people to die?

its funny how you make ridiculous statements when losing an argument.

I wouldn't expect a fascist to have much problem with the concept of old people and other "undesirables" being liquidated.

There's nothing "ridiculous" about my statement. Spruce has been complaining about the costs associated with having old people not die fast enough. He has done so for several pages here and in other threads as well. It's funny that you don't seem to be able to understand his rather clear contention and hilarious you think that your opinion as to who is "winning the argument" is of any consequence.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Good point, in every country people live to exactly the same age and have the same chances of recovering from every illness.

In addition, in fantasy land, I am completely responsible myself and for every piece of my life and livelihood. I make my own food, clothes, and weapons (mostly with my teeth and colon) and I travel on roads that I create by force of will as I drive the car (which I produced, safety-regulated, and licensed one morning while waiting for an airplane that I flew and guided to ground) and I do all this with the vast amounts of cash I squirrel away from the socialist leeches who stalk my streets living off Social Security disability [which I am forced to fund entirely with no expectation that it will ever benefit me or anyone I know by red-conical-hat wearing jack-booted thugs who live under the rocks in my garden (or head) and claim not to be the government (tho I know better.)]

Originally posted by no1marauder
I wouldn't expect a fascist to have much problem with the concept of old people and other undesirables being liquidated.

There's nothing "ridiculous" about my statement. Spruce has been complaining about the costs associated with having old people not die fast enough. He has done so for several pages here and in other threads as well. It's ...[text shortened]... s you think that your opinion as to who is "winning the argument" is of any consequence.

I wouldn't expect a fascist to have much problem with the concept of old people and other undesirables being liquidated

LOL, you just proved my point.

Spruce has been complaining about the costs associated with having old people not die fast enough

show me a quote where he actually implied this.

He has done so for several pages here and in other threads as well

hmm, if only you had any evidence.

hilarious you think that your opinion as to who is "winning the argument" is of any consequence.

Did I say it was of some consequence?
there's no need to get bitter.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The rules are that you get to keep as much of it as society allows. The rules are that if the majority of people decide, by their votes in free democratic elections, that everyone is going to get health care when they are sick and that some people's taxes will have to be raised to pay for it, that's the way it is.

How do you like the rules ...[text shortened]... are sick, too. They don't leave them to die as you apparently prefer our affluent culture to.

I support democratic decision-making. Just because a solution is democratically arrived at doesn't make it perfect, of course. But I like the odds.

I don't prefer that anyone dies. I recognize that people DO die eventually and that there is nothing that can be done about that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What's your big hurry for old people to die? If treatment extends their and other people's lives, what's your problem with it? That it might cost you a few bucks?

The issue is making a LOT of money selling the fake promise of immortality to people who ask others to pay for it.

What is your big hurry to fund such scam artists?

Originally posted by spruce112358
I support democratic decision-making. Just because a solution is democratically arrived at doesn't make it perfect, of course. But I like the odds.

I don't prefer that anyone dies. I recognize that people DO die eventually and that there is nothing that can be done about that.

But what are you trying to argue with your "people die" point?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But what are you trying to argue with your "people die" point?

That publicly funded healthcare is probably manageable. Publicly funded "death prevention" is not. I have no objection to someone spending any amount of their own money on "Hail Mary" cures at the end of life -- but I have a problem with public funding being spent on such.

I'm just saying that the US will now have to create an analog to UK's NICE to deny public funding for non-cost-effective treatments in order to manage costs.

Originally posted by spruce112358
That publicly funded healthcare is probably manageable. Publicly funded "death prevention" is not. I have no objection to someone spending any amount of their own money on "Hail Mary" cures at the end of life -- but I have a problem with public funding being spent on such.

I'm just saying that the US will now have to create an analog to UK's NICE to deny public funding for non-cost-effective treatments in order to manage costs.

Though I'd like to see more detail, I have no problem with the idea of public spending being limited to cost effective treatments.

I suppose the whodeys can now start screaming "RATIONING!"

Originally posted by spruce112358
That publicly funded healthcare is probably manageable. Publicly funded "death prevention" is not. I have no objection to someone spending any amount of their own money on "Hail Mary" cures at the end of life -- but I have a problem with public funding being spent on such.

I'm just saying that the US will now have to create an analog to UK's NICE to deny public funding for non-cost-effective treatments in order to manage costs.

So for the sake of argument who will decide when your "Hail Mary" pass would fail? Bill Frist on the basis of a grainy video? You think people know in every case with absolute certainty that a cure will not work? You're talking about things that are none of your business (except when it affects you or a member of your family for which you are directly responsible.) I can appreciate the idea but as far as I know you are not qualified to make these decisions for others so this is a really silly waste of time. There are no "death" panels.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
So for the sake of argument who will decide when your "Hail Mary" pass would fail? Bill Frist on the basis of a grainy video? You think people know in every case with absolute certainty that a cure will not work? You're talking about things that are none of your business (except when it affects you or a member of your family for which you are directly re ...[text shortened]... decisions for others so this is a really silly waste of time. There are no "death" panels.

I don't think he was advocating that layman or bean counters make such decisions. Surely public health officials don't pay for any "treatment" requested by any patient.