Agree...although I believe he primarily views the world from a financial perspective...but no argument here. But I also believe he would argue that the uninsured man still has a choice as to whether or not to seek treatment once his illness becomes apparent.Petty good answer. It's about the best you can do. I think he meant whatever the consequences, which could include financial. I don't buy the intent as only financial, because the libertarian philosophy is well known. People make choices and if they are bad choices they suffer the consequences, period.
I don't think he meant that.If you want to think he meant that people should be bailed out if their bad choices put their life at risk, I can't stop you from interpreting it that way but it's not my understanding of this political philosophy.
Since it looks like everyone is coming down on this in a partisan manner, maybe the truth of the matter lies in the middle somewhere? Hmmm?
OK, I'll bite. What is the middle ground?
Canada doesn't mandate any of those things and its system isn't "bankrupted."
Ron Pauls Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured
http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured
I thought you said you Teabaggers were smarter than the average voter? I guess it's averaged out.
Not much intelligence in an animal that whallows in fecal matter and ends up as fatty food.
I have froth coming out of my mouth - where as some of you have human feces all over yours. Its a shame, when you willingly allow the rich to crap all over your face and they don't even care to aim for your mouth.
What is worse, you even use please and thank you.
I'm all for a public option. Tho, it's sad that Obama did not squeeze it by.
I'm all for a public option. Tho, it's sad that Obama did not squeeze it by.
I'd never vote for a republican on this issue alone... I love it how ALL YES FUCKING ALL of them ... YES YES YES.. ALL of your MOFO's didn't vote for obama's health care package. So, shouldn't I assume that all of you would be happy to watch someone die so you could keep a dime in your own pocket to spend on the war machine?
I guess I'll assume so...
And a super mod with no audio PC? Sheesh, gotta be a republican for that. What PC can you buy that doesn't have audio? I'd love to see it.
Looks like Ron Paul a doctor "SWORN to HELP in need as his duty" has the shovel and is digging the hole deeper and deeper for the "R"... Anyone willing to vote for them has a few screws loose. If Ron was my doctor I'd be looking for a new one in hurry.
You liberal can all shove it. I won't cheer for the uninsured to die but I certainly will not pay for someone's healthcare especially when that someone made a personal choice not to get health insurance.
The problem with any program like socialized healthcare, just like education, is that there will never be 'enough' money. If we spend $2000.00 a year per person we will be told we need to spend $4k and everything will be great, if we spend 4k we will be told to we need to spend 6k, 8k, 10k, etc. It NEVER ends and we NEVER achieve the results that were promised. Just like education we will spend tons and tons of money and get at BEST a mediocre result.
The liberals are never held accountable either. If it fails, they just blame not having enough money, enough regulation, or blame the rich for not paying their fair share.
Cool story bro.
Now if you don't mind, please go explain why socialized healthcare works better than our system in every developed nation on earth.
Define "better".
Achieves health outcomes for the target population that are comparable to those of the US at significantly lower costs.
Note, there is some variance with this. Some achieve somewhat lesser results than the US at VASTLY lower cost, while others achieve comparable results at only significantly lower cost. No matter what way you slice it however, they are superior by any standard public policy metric.
The problem with any program like socialized healthcare, just like education, is that there will never be 'enough' money. If we spend $2000.00 a year per person we will be told we need to spend $4k and everything will be great, if we spend 4k we will be told to we need to spend 6k, 8k, 10k, etc. It NEVER ends and we NEVER achieve the results that were promised. Just like education we will spend tons and tons of money and get at BEST a mediocre result.
The liberals are never held accountable either. If it fails, they just blame not having enough money, enough regulation, or blame the rich for not paying their fair share.
Well, I guess that's resolved then.
Its revealing that in both examples you gave the results were no higher than 'comparable' at best but yet your conclusion is that 'no matter what way you slice it they are superior'. I guess unless you slice it by RESULTS.
The problem with any program like socialized healthcare, just like education, is that there will never be 'enough' money. If we spend $2000.00 a year per person we will be told we need to spend $4k and everything will be great, if we spend 4k we will be told to we need to spend 6k, 8k, 10k, etc. It NEVER ends and we NEVER achieve the results that were promised. Just like education we will spend tons and tons of money and get at BEST a mediocre result.
The liberals are never held accountable either. If it fails, they just blame not having enough money, enough regulation, or blame the rich for not paying their fair share.
It's been resolved for quite a long time now, the only issue is getting things implemented.
Only in your world would 'results' exist independent from expenditures required to get there. It's just a sign of how desperate you are to find any way to avoid the conclusion staring you in the face.
Except right now we spend more per person on healthcare than any other nation on earth.
The proof is in the pudding.