Let's debunk one of liberals' belief — healthcare should be a fundamental right

and how long can it last lol its lasted over 60 years so far and still costs a third of what healthcare costs in your country, so I think it will last just fine personally, its your system thats unsustainable not ours, ours is self-funding, as the tax base grows so does it, so it can last forever.

 

One can almost anywhere get immediate treatment if one is prepared to pay for it. Duuh

Your ignorance of the British NHS funding is as astonishing as your purported knowledge of snakestretcher's financial and personal circumstances. The inane uttering is nothing short of an insult.

Btw, all insurances are 'collectivist', those who are unfortunate enough to need to claim at some point always benefit from the contributions of those who not - this is what insurances are for and about!

 

WTF are you talking about? I have worked all my adult life, paid my taxes like everyone else and, like everyone else I'm as entitled to make use of the resources of the NHS which my contributions have paid for! Why is that an issue for you?
As for the rest of your ignorant, insulting crap you can shove it where it emerged from.

Yes, you can get immediate treatment in America but after that you're on your own, if you can't afford ongoing care. I can go into hospital tomorrow, have a triple heart by-pass and receive ongoing care for as long as it takes, and it won't have cost me a penny at the point of delivery. I'm sorry you're so envious but eventually your retarded nation will catch up with the rest of the civilised world. I'm not so certain that you will, however...

 

during the whole healthcare debate a conservative used stephen hawking as an example, saying he would have died under the british system, before it was pointed out to him that stephen hawking is english and has lived in britain all his life, and credits the fact he's alive today to the nhs.

 

There are some very stupid conservatives around. And they wonder why they're ridiculed?

 

[video=youtube;6fcMVCdY2pc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fcMVCdY2pc[/video] here it is

 

[video=youtube;4CGeED_lavU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CGeED_lavU[/video] more conservative lies and backtracking about healthcare, death panels this time, which dont exist btw.

 

[video=youtube;INUww6XfUHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INUww6XfUHA[/video] good video

 

Impressive ignorance! (I hear rumours that Hawking is also a Communist Russian spy-with a disturbing fondness for small furry animals, and his wheelchair is actually capable of turning into a secret underground training centre for Jihadists...) It must be true, a conservative told me...

 

its the way they will happily just lie that gets me, they are completely shameless and will just ignore reality in pursuit of unproven dogma

 

'Ignorant', rather.
But there is no excuse for this, specially in the US where anybody has access to the internet and information is only a few clicks away. What I find amazing, is that they don't seem shy to spout their ludricous 'opinions' on the net, but seem too lazy to read up on the topic beforehand.

 

That's what happens when you rely on the mainstream media which most closely reflects your political stance as your 'factual' news source.

 

See my reply to Charlie Chalk, above. And, yes, but if you're too stupid not to look behind the screeching and populist headlines, ignorance is the result. Cause and effect. I'll lay you 10-1 that the OP's primary news source is Fox, and that he watches it because it gets the highest ratings which, by extension, must mean that it's the best.

 

All those who believe in universal healthcare should by now be quaking in their boots.

What a moronic post!

 

There is a difference in China the government still has a government run plan it may take a lot of time to see a doctor who is a specialist but you can its covered by taxes and the like, and if you have an emergency its covered. More than I can say in the USA.

And you can see a GP pretty easily and its covered.

 

I want to correct the government has a fee structure annual insurance rates for the basic health care program is $7 US and there are some other small costs. But still they do try to help all their citizens with health care and help make it affordable unlike our government until they passed the ACA which is good for the poor and up to the middle class to some degree.

 

Yeah, because you can't get rich in this country selling crap

 

al·le·vi·ate:
to make (pain, for example) more bearable: a drug that alleviates cold symptoms.

pov·er·ty n.
1. The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.
2. Deficiency in amount; scantiness: "the poverty of feeling that reduced her soul" (Scott Turow).
3. Unproductiveness; infertility: the poverty of the soil.
4. Renunciation made by a member of a religious order of the right to own property.

Any other childish games you wish to play in order to avoid answering the question? This is why you guys will never amount to more than one percent of any given population. Everybody sees the silly games you play except for you.

Keep the faith, brother.

 

I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for those who don't have isurance. It's not that most can't affor insurance it that they don't pay for it. They would much rather not wait a few months and save for that big tv or DVD player. They dont feel they need it till its too late. I could live much higher on the hog but undead I pay for good Heath insurance and have an emergency fund saved up. If your going to take the chance that's fine but why should I have to suffer for you mistakes when the unthinkable does happen.

 

I haven't seen any libertarian make such idiotic claims as this one:

"where the policies you are advocating have been tried, one place where charity sufficiently dealt with poverty on a national level."

That's you^ If you can't engage the arguments we ACTUALLY MAKE, then why do you respond? Now let me continue to be generous. I asked you what alleviate poverty means, and you responded with a definition of alleviate? I'm pretty sure you read the definition before you posted it, and that you're intelligent enough to know that bear is not any less ambiguous than alleviate. This is very important, you see, because we need to know just how tough the straw man that came from your imagination is. Now go ahead and answer the questions in the other two posts that are right next to the one you just responded to.

 

Why don't you paste the definition of sufficiently here too?

 

Don't worry, when I am considering whether or not to save your life in an emergency situation, I'll consider the cost/benefit and whether or not it is a basic human right first.

 

Ahh, so I see we are once again headed back to fantasyland, the favorite destination of libertarians. I'm guessing it's probably true that if you subsidize an activity that activity will increase and if you pay people to sit around in a crappy neighborhood, more people will do that. The problem here in the real world is that nobody is being paid to sit around in crappy neighborhoods. So even if your syllogism is true, it's irrelevant. Many people are getting help paying their rent. Many are getting help paying for food to feed themselves and their children. But none are getting paid for sitting around. Even if people were getting paid to sit around doing nothing, you would still have a lot of work to do to demonstrate how much the subsidization increased the activity and if it comes even close to explaining urban blight. Ya, I know. That would require effort and I wouldn't begin to suggest that you should put forth any. You already know all you need to know.

I would doubt legal ownership is the strongest factor in determining whether people take care of something. I would guess that it is more likely a function of whether they know they are going to need to use the thing again and how much they like nice things. But if we step out of fantasyland, the relevant question for the real world problem is who is actually destroying these neighborhoods. My understanding is that it's young men and the homeless, neither of which receive a penny of assistance, and the stuff they destroy is owned by other people anyway. I have been inside several residences of people on some form of assistance, and all of them have been more neat and tidy than my residence. Moreover, it is my understanding that the people on assistance are some of the most vociferous in trying to get some help to stop the young men and homeless from destroying their neighborhoods. They don't want live amongst blight any more than you or I. I'll let you explain why you think most people receiving assistance want to live like animals.

I eagerly await your next set of syllogisms that have no relevance to any of the real problems we trying to understand. It is, after all, what libertarians do best.

 

Okay, that's where I stopped reading. I'll read the rest later. See, you can't grant the premise and the logic, and then go on to deny the conclusion. I wasn't even that careful when I wrote those, so you could probably find something wrong with them. But you didn't even try. You just keep trying to tell me how you feel. And I don't care.

 

Sigh... I would have thought the context would explain the motivation for the question. Oh well. See, many of us addled liberals believe that human societies are complicated things, messy, if you will. We believe that something resembling capitalism is a really good way to distribute most, though not all, goods throughout a society. We also happen to believe, however, that poverty is built into capitalism. Since we want the capitalism-like thing, we also think it is reasonable to assist the people who bear the brunt of that structural unfairness. We thus provide them with assistance for housing and food. It's really not that complicated. We know it's not perfect. We know we are never going to eliminate poverty. We can't. It's part of capitalism. But we know we can make sure that nobody suffers too badly. It's an imperfect solution to an intractable problem. Then Zosiasmom comes along and starts blaming us for the problem. She says our programs to help feed and house the poor are actually causing the poor. She makes not effort to explain why there were poor to qualify for the assistance in the first place. No, it's our policies. She just knows. So I figured it would be reasonable to ask if there was real place she had in mind, so we we could all see how wonderful it would be without soul-killing social programs.