I gots rights to good medical care & decent housing!

[JAGUARBONE]

One of the many consequences of not providing medical treatment and housing to those that can not afford it include the rampant spread of disease.

Um, pregnancy is not a disease.
Heart disease can be thwarted same way as STD's, AIDS, ect. - by responsible life choices.
Hey, Aren't immunizations free (or very low cost by way of government subsidization) for most public school children?

to pay for someone else's healthcare and housing, but I haven't heard the same complainers offer any alternative suggestions that make any sense.
Right - so why vote for Dems who give those of your mind set hope?- those who make all these grand pointless promises and even after EIGHT straight years of their crap- NOTHING MUCH was changed?
The jobs at Burger king in LA. were paying sign on bonuses because the applicants were so few. Hummm, what the hell is right about that picture?


ENTITLED HOUSING???? Man, what country do you think - or want this to be?? Sheeseeeh!

Good ideas?
First: Stop enpowering those too fu@kin sorry to heal themselves by making it so easy to sit back and wait for duh check or the new "goverment credit card" - would be a good starter.

Quote from riserburn:

With that in mind, do you actually have any good ideas or are you just complaining?

 

[dddooo]

Quote from JAGUARBONE:

We whom own property DO pay for it. Just not per diem! I'm sure the property taxes ( police protection costs) are built into your total monthly rent - all the same.

Those who pay taxes pay for police protection subsidizing those who don't pay taxes and yet are fully protected. Those who never happen to call police still pay for police protection subsidizing those who call 911 ten times a year.

If you're arguing that there is no right to Healthcare because some people will end up paying for the services received by others and that's unconstitutional, you have to admit that there is no right to be protected by the police because some people are paying for the services received by others and that's equally unconstitutional.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from dddooo:

Those who pay taxes pay for police protection subsidizing those who don't pay taxes and yet are fully protected. Those who never happen to call police still pay for police protection subsidizing those who call 911 ten times a year.

If you're arguing that there is no right to Healthcare because some people will end up paying for the services received by others and that's unconstitutional, you have to admit that there is no right to be protected by the police because some people are paying for the services received by others and that's equally unconstitutional.

No, the difference is that the police respond to VICTIMS of CRIMES, perpetrated ON PURPOSE , sometimes indiscriminately, on an innocent victim...

However, those with health issues are NOT the victims of someone else's action, except in the case of A CRIME. They may be innocent of wrongdoing, true. But they're not victims.

 

[TGregg]

Quote from JAGUARBONE:

I gots rights to good medical care & decent housing!

Not to mention a good job, overtime pay, vacation, holidays off, a car, gasoline and insurance for it, a wife and family, three squares a day, nice clothes, a night on the town every once in a while, and unlimited "learnin", all provided by Uncle Sugar.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from Haroki:

No, the difference is that the police respond to VICTIMS of CRIMES, perpetrated ON PURPOSE , sometimes indiscriminately, on an innocent victim...

However, those with health issues are NOT the victims of someone else's action, except in the case of A CRIME. They may be innocent of wrongdoing, true. But they're not victims.

Huh? What does it have to do with the constitutionality of the issue this thread is talking about? The government is still taking the property of one person to give to another when it protects a bum who has never paid a penny in taxes. That according to the original post is unconstitutional.

Here is the original quote:

Quote from JAGUARBONE:

By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government.

 

[riserburn]

Quote from Haroki:

How about instead of giving away free healthcare and subsidized housing, provide job training so they could afford it themselves....

I'd be good with that. It ends the cycle of dependence on the govt and makes people responsible for thir own lives. Those that are unable to work due to physical problems, etc, would be an acceptable 'out'.

I'm good with that as well; but consider this:

There are hundreds of thousands of people that work, but still can't afford healthcare or have enough money for housing outside of government resources. The training that is provided and the subsequent jobs they are elligible to work do not produce the adequate level of income to alleviate the dependency.

This is true because the employers have to balance the costs of carrying insurance for these low wage employees with the feasiblity of raising the cost of goods and services; thereby passing their increased overhead along to their consumers. Unforunately, a lot of these businesses that employ low wage employees depend upon a low wage employee demographic as their primary source of income (i.e. Walmart, Burger King, etc. etc.). Therefore, any subsequent means of passing on their increase in healthcare insurance costs to their low wage consumers would require that more of their customers' income be used to purchase those goods and services and have less money left to pay for healthcare and housing; not to mention running the risk of losing customers and eating away at their profits. THAT would be a bitch since shareholders hate that. So instead, these companies figure out "inventive" ways to dump their low wage employees onto the government healthcare system and keep those profits; by the way, their shareholders are definitely "good with that".

Besides, isn't a government requirement for employers to provide healthcare insurance a form of socialization?

People hate paying for others' healthcare and housing costs, but they don't mind if business owners have to?

I suppose that all these American companies taking their labor intensive operations to countries that HAVE socialized healthcare systems is pure coincidence?

Of course the Dims wouldn't like it, because as soon as those folks start paying income tax......

Oops, there goes their voters....

I hardly see where this issue has anything to do with partisan politics. I haven't heard EITHER party offer any intelligent DETAILED ideas on how to solve this problem.

 

[riserburn]

Quote from JAGUARBONE:

Um, pregnancy is not a disease.
Heart disease can be thwarted same way as STD's, AIDS, ect. - by responsible life choices.

I was thinking more in lines of influenza, TB, dissentary, hepatitis A, rotavirus, RSV, etc.etc.; none of these have anything to do with life style choices. Even if they did, its OK to allow the "irresponsible" people to roam around to be vectors at the expense of the safety of those that are "responsible"? What the hell twisted logic is that?

Hey, Aren't immunizations free (or very low cost by way of government subsidization) for most public school children?

So once you graduate the school system you're "fair game"?

Right - so why vote for Dems who give those of your mind set hope?- those who make all these grand pointless promises and even after EIGHT straight years of their crap- NOTHING MUCH was changed?

And Republicans have done a better job? How's the last 6 years changed with a Republican majority in every branch? Like I said in my previous post: it has little to do with partisan politics since neither party has had little to offer.

The jobs at Burger king in LA. were paying sign on bonuses because the applicants were so few. Hummm, what the hell is right about that picture?

Oh yeah! They have excellent healthcare insurance packages! That must be why I see their employees come into the ER in uniform using Medicaid IDs.

ENTITLED HOUSING???? Man, what country do you think - or want this to be?? Sheeseeeh!

One where I don't have to wear a HEPA mask and rubber gloves when I leave my house. One where I don't have to step over bodies on the sidewalk before I walk into the grocery store. One where my property value won't plummet because there is a shanty town of cardboard and plywood shacks near my neighborhood.

Good ideas?
First: Stop enpowering those too fu@kin sorry to heal themselves by making it so easy to sit back and wait for duh check or the new "goverment credit card" - would be a good starter.

Nope, still don't see any good ideas from you; just more bitching and whining.

 

[dddooo]

Quote from riserburn:

I haven't heard EITHER party offer any intelligent DETAILED ideas on how to solve this problem.

I have a detailed plan to provide universal health care. Others may use that phrase, but their plans leave many Americans without coverage. Under my plan, patients and doctors are put in charge of the system, instead of HMOs and private insurance companies. Patients are able to select their doctors. The costs are completely covered by the government. And we don't end up paying any more than what we're paying now. A new study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and Public Citizen estimates that national health insurance could save at least $286 billion annually on paperwork, enough to cover all of the uninsured and to provide full prescription drug coverage for everyone in the United States.
...
This plan is based on a bill I introduced together with Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, H.R. 676. Under this plan, individuals would not have to pay premiums, deductibles, or co-pays. Other plans would leave the insurance companies in charge. Right now, the insurance and the pharmaceutical companies own us. We need to take our health care system back.
...
Right now, private companies are charging about 18% for administration, while the cost of Medicare administration is only 3%. People are waiting longer for appointments. Fewer people are getting a doctor of their choice. Physicians are being given monetary incentives to deny care. Pre-existing illnesses are being used to deny coverage. It's important to understand that insurance companies make more money by NOT providing health care. A single-payer system can save money by investing in preventive care, as well as by cutting out the insurance companies' profits.
...
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php

 

[Ricter]

Holy crap dddooo, is that you for real? Sweet!

 

[Haroki]

Quote from riserburn:

I'm good with that as well; but consider this:

There are hundreds of thousands of people that work, but still can't afford healthcare or have enough money for housing outside of government resources. The training that is provided and the subsequent jobs they are elligible to work do not produce the adequate level of income to alleviate the dependency.

This is true because the employers have to balance the costs of carrying insurance for these low wage employees with the feasiblity of raising the cost of goods and services; thereby passing their increased overhead along to their consumers. Unforunately, a lot of these businesses that employ low wage employees depend upon a low wage employee demographic as their primary source of income (i.e. Walmart, Burger King, etc. etc.). Therefore, any subsequent means of passing on their increase in healthcare insurance costs to their low wage consumers would require that more of their customers' income be used to purchase those goods and services and have less money left to pay for healthcare and housing; not to mention running the risk of losing customers and eating away at their profits. THAT would be a bitch since shareholders hate that. So instead, these companies figure out "inventive" ways to dump their low wage employees onto the government healthcare system and keep those profits; by the way, their shareholders are definitely "good with that".

Besides, isn't a government requirement for employers to provide healthcare insurance a form of socialization?

People hate paying for others' healthcare and housing costs, but they don't mind if business owners have to?

I suppose that all these American companies taking their labor intensive operations to countries that HAVE socialized healthcare systems is pure coincidence?



I hardly see where this issue has anything to do with partisan politics. I haven't heard EITHER party offer any intelligent DETAILED ideas on how to solve this problem.

Well, the other part of that would, indeed require some health care reform. I will admit that I have no specifics here.Requiring employers to do it is.... wrong. IMO.

We pay for it now, however indirectly, the 40% that do have ins... I would think that , again, putting the burden of responsibility on the individual would be better. For instance, I know that when I was younger - 20's - I didn't give a crap about my ins. I would have rather had the cash - my decision. And if I got hurt - my responsibility to repay. That would be ok too. I suppose (?) that ins companies could offer various deductibles for different plans - for example, high deductibles for single guys, etc that were at low risk - thinking of my situation here.

It would be a personal decision for each - take the money and buy the big screen and the Xbox, or be responsible and pay for some med ins.

Another idea might be term health ins? Just a random idea.... Get money back after a time....

As far as politicizing - well, it is a political issue... sorry if I offended...