Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Bang]

Because of greed, that's why.

 

It's not hard to figure out. A rich person can pay more to live. (they will not leave him rich. Him being rich has actually nothing to do with it. His value is only as long and as far as he can pay.)

And that makes all the difference for the American health care industry.

Everything in our society is valued by a dollar amount, no matter how much anyone wants to wax philosophically about it.

Everything. Your life, my life, your kid's health, my kid's health,... once your dollar value is exhausted, so are you. 

 

~Bang

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Bang

[Fresh8686]

24 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Rich does not always equal stronger or smarter, but on a large scale it makes sense that the more successful a person is the "better" they are.  Obviously there are exceptions (cough.......Trump......cough).

 

Eh, I'd say this only holds true in a meritocracy, of which our country is becoming ever more less so, and only then for the person who actually garnered the wealth, not so for the people benefiting from it. In those cases the wealth is sheltering the beneficiaries from the things in life that would diminish capacity and providing every bit of leverage and opportunity to augment their "natural" or base-line level competency. We have a problem in this country with differentiating between merit and privilege.

The quote from above is a sad belief in a way and I'd say its a prime part of the cultural obsequiousness right wingers have to the rich. They see the rich as superior to others and those who aren't rich want to be superior as well. Couple that with good old american greed and the consequent twisting of freedom by it and you have a group of people who glorify the rich and see money as the path to freedom FROM consequences.  A society where eventually there is no character or community and everything is transactional. 
 

[twa]

Those rich folks paying medical bills enables drs and hospitals to treat the poor.....and live well

[Fresh8686]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

Those rich folks paying medical bills enables drs and hospitals to treat the poor.....and live well

Eh. I'd say those middle class folk are doing more of the lifting there. Why not give them a shout out?

[twa]

7 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Eh. I'd say those middle class folk are doing more of the lifting there. Why not give them a shout out?

 

I consider them rich folk in denial.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

36 minutes ago, twa said:

I consider them rich folk in denial.

You have a point here.

[Captain Wiggles]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Rich does not always equal stronger or smarter, but on a large scale it makes sense that the more successful a person is the "better" they are. 

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 My argument was that, on a large scale, wealthy people tend to be the stronger and/or smarter, etc.  So everyone should be entitled to a certain level of care.  But beyond that, if you want the care you have to pay for it.  So the "stronger, smarter" can afford it and then tend to live longer.

 

 

 

So basically **** the sick and the poor. Any more undesirables you wanna get rid of in your Darwin utopia?

[Berggy9598]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Almost missed your edit.

 

Rich does not always equal stronger or smarter, but on a large scale it makes sense that the more successful a person is the "better" they are.  Obviously there are exceptions (cough.......Trump......cough).

 

So let me ask you, what is fair to expect from health care?  Should each person be treated the same no matter the cost?  Lets say there are two people that get infected with Buzzitis.  It is totally curable but costs $10 million to treat.  One is a homeless person and the other is a billionaire who can pay it out of pocket.  What should happen?

What should happen is what happens in every other first world country. A human life is a human life. Ive seen the term slippery slope thrown around a lot in the gun control thread and you’re on a very slippery slope deciding who lives and who dies in that manner. If I was playing God with peoples lives like you’re suggesting though, the white collar criminal can rot. The thing is both of them have a right to live and their bank accounts shouldn’t be a factor, 

[twa]

7 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

What should happen is what happens in every other first world country.

 

The rich get the best care?

I've spent quite a bit of time at the Medical Center here and see rich folk from all over the world dropping a dime.

[Captain Wiggles]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I've spent quite a bit of time at the Medical Center here and see rich folk from all over the world dropping a dime.

 

Checkmate! Your move libtards.

[Berggy9598]

12 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The rich get the best care?

I've spent quite a bit of time at the Medical Center here and see rich folk from all over the world dropping a dime.

That’s why I said every other first world country unless I’m miss understanding you. We have some of the most accomplished doctors on the planet if I was rich I’d do the same thing. 

[twa]

10 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

That’s why I said every other first world country unless I’m miss understanding you. We have some of the most accomplished doctors on the planet if I was rich I’d do the same thing. 

 

Other 1st world countries have private hospitals/clinics as well

 

 

[Larry]

Just now, twa said:

 

Other 1st world countries have private hospitals/clinics as well

 

 

 

You mean, even when the government completely takes over health care, they don't?  

 

[twa]

Just now, Larry said:

 

You mean, even when the government completely takes over health care, they don't?  

 

 

Death panels don't apply to those w/better options. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

55 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

 

 

So basically **** the sick and the poor. Any more undesirables you wanna get rid of in your Darwin utopia?

Well I did say everyone is entitled to a certain level of care.  Perhaps you should ask where I consider that level to be before you accuse me of saying **** them.

 

The initial premise was dumb.  Why do we value the life of the rich over the poor?  It's not that we do but it seems like it because they can pay more!  Again, going back to the question of what is fair to expect for health care.  Whatever you think that is, when the rich can pay for more beyond that and the rest can't, that doesnt mean we value them more.  It means they can purchase more.

 

53 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

What should happen is what happens in every other first world country. A human life is a human life. Ive seen the term slippery slope thrown around a lot in the gun control thread and you’re on a very slippery slope deciding who lives and who dies in that manner. If I was playing God with peoples lives like you’re suggesting though, the white collar criminal can rot. The thing is both of them have a right to live and their bank accounts shouldn’t be a factor, 

In what first world country do the dirt poor get the exact same level of care as the rich?  (And you must consider that the rich would be barred from buying better services otherwise it would prove that the rich get better care).

 

Edit: and just to pull the pin on another grenade, at what point in do you consider it a "human life"?

Edited April 3, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[bearrock]

18 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well I did say everyone is entitled to a certain level of care.  Perhaps you should ask where I consider that level to be before you accuse me of saying **** them.

 

The initial premise was dumb.  Why do we value the life of the rich over the poor?  It's not that we do but it seems like it because they can pay more!  Again, going back to the question of what is fair to expect for health care.  Whatever you think that is, when the rich can pay for more beyond that and the rest can't, that doesnt mean we value them more.  It means they can purchase more.

 

In what first world country do the dirt poor get the exact same level of care as the rich?  (And you must consider that the rich would be barred from buying better services otherwise it would prove that the rich get better care).

 

Edit: and just to pull the pin on another grenade, at what point in do you consider it a "human life"?

Where would you draw the line in terms of rich getting priority in terms of health care?  Can a rich person pay extra to get ahead of the line?  Take a hospital bed from someone who can't pay as much?  Change a surgeon's schedule?  Pull a surgeon out of surgery?  

 

What is the minimum level of care everyone is entitled to regardless of their ability to pay?

[Captain Wiggles]

28 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Edit: and just to pull the pin on another grenade, at what point in do you consider it a "human life"?

 

When they cut the umbilical cord from the parasites.

 

 

So 18?

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Where would you draw the line in terms of rich getting priority in terms of health care?  Can a rich person pay extra to get ahead of the line?  Take a hospital bed from someone who can't pay as much?  Change a surgeon's schedule?  Pull a surgeon out of surgery?  

 

What is the minimum level of care everyone is entitled to regardless of their ability to pay?

Honestly, I don't know.  That's why it was an interesting thread.  Easy answer is life and limb.  But where is that line?  A patient must have an estimated 12 months to live?  What about 12 months and 1 day?  Is $10 million justified to give a person another week to live?  Another month?  Another year?

 

 

 

 

Just now, clietas said:

 

When they cut the umbilical cord from the parasites.

 

 

So 18?

Funny but I'd like to know Berggys answer since he used the phrase.

[bearrock]

21 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Honestly, I don't know.  That's why it was an interesting thread.  Easy answer is life and limb.  But where is that line?  A patient must have an estimated 12 months to live?  What about 12 months and 1 day?  Is $10 million justified to give a person another week to live?  Another month?  Another year?

 

If the majority of the population's answer is that financial resources should have no bearing on the quality of health care one receives, would that answer be acceptable to you?

[Berggy9598]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well I did say everyone is entitled to a certain level of care.  Perhaps you should ask where I consider that level to be before you accuse me of saying **** them.

 

The initial premise was dumb.  Why do we value the life of the rich over the poor?  It's not that we do but it seems like it because they can pay more!  Again, going back to the question of what is fair to expect for health care.  Whatever you think that is, when the rich can pay for more beyond that and the rest can't, that doesnt mean we value them more.  It means they can purchase more.

 

In what first world country do the dirt poor get the exact same level of care as the rich?  (And you must consider that the rich would be barred from buying better services otherwise it would prove that the rich get better care).

 

Edit: and just to pull the pin on another grenade, at what point in do you consider it a "human life"?

 

The gap between what the rich and the poor get in terms of health care in this country is monumentally bigger than in any other first world country. In this case my original post referred to the human life of a father of 3 that worked his entire life and raised one of the most respectful and kind hearted kids I've ever been around. Yes, I value that life more so than that of a zygote. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Berggy9598

[Berggy9598]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

Other 1st world countries have private hospitals/clinics as well

 

 

 

I wasn't saying everyone should get treated by a world renowned oncologist for free. I can see how some of what I said can get misconstrued into that so that's my bad. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

LOL. The party of healthcare has a plan that's so awesome and everyone's going to love it so much. Like, if you knew how awesome it was, you would definitely vote for them. Don't ask them about it for the next 19 months though. That's how great their ideas are. So great that they don't want to talk about them until after the election 🙄

Edited April 3, 2019 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

If the majority of the population's answer is that financial resources should have no bearing on the quality of health care one receives, would that answer be acceptable to you?

 

I keep seeing this concern there won't be enough resources for all of us and that's a reason not to try and save as many lives as possible when it comes to health care and other situations around the world.  Believe the population growing to levels our current infrastructure can't handle is inevitable, which is why we should invest in being able to afford it now, not once we hit that inevitable number.  Stuff like terraforming Mars have to be on the table.

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

If the majority of the population's answer is that financial resources should have no bearing on the quality of health care one receives, would that answer be acceptable to you?

It sounds good but how would it be enforced?  Are you suggesting a law that makes it illegal to pay for the private services of a better doctor?  Would the worst doctor in the country and the best doctor in the country be paid the same?  If not, who would fund the difference and how would it be decided who went to which doctor?

 

Your proposal sounds interesting but I don't see how it is realistic.

[twa]

10 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

If the majority of the population's answer is that financial resources should have no bearing on the quality of health care one receives, would that answer be acceptable to you?

I would say they are ignorant of the matter.