Statistician Nate Silver from 538 analyzes several polls on the public option for healthcare reform

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Thats why we need to get rid of those stupid laws. If they can't pay, they should be thrown out in the street.

Should we just give you a gun and then you can shoot them too?

Troll.

Its called business sense. These hospitals aren't charities. They need to make money to survive. They need to pay doctors, charge customers, and purchase expensive equipment. If you force the hospitals to accept everyone, they'll be going out of business. You don't expect restaurants to just give free meals to every bum that comes in asking for food do you?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Thats why we need to get rid of those stupid laws. If they can't pay, they should be thrown out in the street.

Should we just give you a gun and then you can shoot them too?

Troll.

Its called business sense. These hospitals aren't charities. They need to make money to survive. They need to pay doctors, charge customers, and purchase expensive equipment. If you force the hospitals to accept everyone, they'll be going out of business. You don't expect restaurants to just give free meals to every bum that comes in asking for food do you?

Good luck winning any election with that platform. Americans may not be the smartest, but they aren't suicidal enough to try this right wing utopian BS either.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Since I'm a veteran, I can use the VA, but I didn't like the story about how they screwed up 92 out of 116 cancer treatments.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Since I'm a veteran, I can use the VA, but I didn't like the story about how they screwed up 92 out of 116 cancer treatments.

That was from 1 doctor. You do realize you're being subsidized yourself, right?

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Since I'm a veteran, I can use the VA, but I didn't like the story about how they screwed up 92 out of 116 cancer treatments.

That was from 1 doctor. But the question is, why do you think it's ok that we subsidize you but you don't want to subsidize others.

1. Never used the VA
2. That's part of the contract that I signed. Gov't gets to own me for X years and if I'm good during those X years I get certain benefits in return.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Since I'm a veteran, I can use the VA, but I didn't like the story about how they screwed up 92 out of 116 cancer treatments.

That was from 1 doctor. But the question is, why do you think it's ok that we subsidize you but you don't want to subsidize others.

1. Never used the VA
2. That's part of the contract that I signed. Gov't gets to own me for X years and if I'm good during those X years I get certain benefits in return.

Used them once when I seperated - document an injury - problem was the paperwork was foulded up.

Luck you - the gov only owned you for X years - I got life

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Since I'm a veteran, I can use the VA, but I didn't like the story about how they screwed up 92 out of 116 cancer treatments.

That was from 1 doctor. But the question is, why do you think it's ok that we subsidize you but you don't want to subsidize others.

1. Never used the VA
2. That's part of the contract that I signed. Gov't gets to own me for X years and if I'm good during those X years I get certain benefits in return.

Do you believe we should get rid of the VA and just throw out all the old/poor/sick vets who use the system onto the street then?

Edit: also, the VHA provides better care than private healthcare. Even though veterans tend to be older and sicker. The cancer thing you pointed out was 1 type of cancer from 1 doctor (that was contracted from UPENN).

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...2005/0501.longman.html

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Do you believe we should get rid of the VA and just throw out all the old/poor/sick vets who use the system onto the street then?

Edit: also, the VHA provides better care than private healthcare. Even though veterans tend to be older and sicker. The cancer thing you pointed out was 1 type of cancer from 1 doctor (that was contracted from UPENN).

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...2005/0501.longman.html

Why would you say that? I never once said sick people shouldn't have health care. A veteran getting medical care and some illegal getting medical are worlds apart. Service mean and women do their jobs at a very reduced cost as opposed to civilians doing the same job. I don't hear you complaining about the cheap labor you get provided to the military.

People put into the position of being in harms way did so with getting medical care as a payment for their service. If the VA were a little closer to me, I might consider using them. I did my time and got an honourable discharge so why shouldn't I use something that I earned the right to use?

I guess I should thank you as well for subsidizing a good portion of my college tuition via the GI Bill.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Do you believe we should get rid of the VA and just throw out all the old/poor/sick vets who use the system onto the street then?

Edit: also, the VHA provides better care than private healthcare. Even though veterans tend to be older and sicker. The cancer thing you pointed out was 1 type of cancer from 1 doctor (that was contracted from UPENN).

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...2005/0501.longman.html

Why would you say that? I never once said sick people shouldn't have health care. A veteran getting medical care and some illegal getting medical are worlds apart. Service mean and women do their jobs at a very reduced cost as opposed to civilians doing the same job. I don't hear you complaining about the cheap labor you get provided to the military.

People put into the position of being in harms way did so with getting medical care as a payment for their service. If the VA were a little closer to me, I might consider using them. I did my time and got an honourable discharge so why shouldn't I use something that I earned the right to use?

I guess I should thank you as well for subsidizing a good portion of my college tuition via the GI Bill.

You said this: "I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others."

Which was vague, you didn't specifically say 'illegal aliens'.

Sounded like you wanted an opt-out clause or something

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Since I'm a veteran, I can use the VA, but I didn't like the story about how they screwed up 92 out of 116 cancer treatments.

That was from 1 doctor. But the question is, why do you think it's ok that we subsidize you but you don't want to subsidize others.

1. Never used the VA
2. That's part of the contract that I signed. Gov't gets to own me for X years and if I'm good during those X years I get certain benefits in return.

Do you believe we should get rid of the VA and just throw out all the old/poor/sick vets who use the system onto the street then?

Edit: also, the VHA provides better care than private healthcare. Even though veterans tend to be older and sicker. The cancer thing you pointed out was 1 type of cancer from 1 doctor (that was contracted from UPENN).

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...2005/0501.longman.html

I wouldn't say the VHA's health care is great. I've been to the Miami hospital and its not exactly the greatest.

In February, the VA launched an investigation after learning that more than 10,000 patients at three agency hospitals in the Southeast may have been exposed to HIV, hepatitis and other infections through non-sterile equipment used in colonoscopies or endoscopies conducted as far back as 2003.

http://health.usnews.com/artic...ted-colonoscopies.html

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Beowulf

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull


Since I'm a veteran, I can use the VA, but I didn't like the story about how they screwed up 92 out of 116 cancer treatments.

That was from 1 doctor. But the question is, why do you think it's ok that we subsidize you but you don't want to subsidize others.

1. Never used the VA
2. That's part of the contract that I signed. Gov't gets to own me for X years and if I'm good during those X years I get certain benefits in return.

Do you believe we should get rid of the VA and just throw out all the old/poor/sick vets who use the system onto the street then?

Edit: also, the VHA provides better care than private healthcare. Even though veterans tend to be older and sicker. The cancer thing you pointed out was 1 type of cancer from 1 doctor (that was contracted from UPENN).

http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...2005/0501.longman.html

I wouldn't say the VHA's health care is great. I've been to the Miami hospital and its not exactly the greatest.

In February, the VA launched an investigation after learning that more than 10,000 patients at three agency hospitals in the Southeast may have been exposed to HIV, hepatitis and other infections through non-sterile equipment used in colonoscopies or endoscopies conducted as far back as 2003.

http://health.usnews.com/artic...ted-colonoscopies.html

Ouch - I have a sister-in-law that works at the Miami VA.

Step Father-in-law was in their care for 5 years before he passed away.

 

[DukeN]

Originally posted by: Paddington

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

By definition you will be, assuming you're not a welfare leech right now that pays no taxes. Where do you think that money will come from?

There's basically 4 groups of people right now who are uninsured:

1) Illegal immigrants
2) People who comfortably make good money who choose not to buy health insurance
3) People covered by Medicaid/Medicare who just aren't signed up for it (you'd be amazed how common this is)
4) People just above the Medicaid line who don't qualify

Group 3 is already covered; they just don't sign up until they actually get sick one day and come in to the ED. Group 2 is taking a chance, but that should be their right to do so. Perhaps coverage for their children should be mandated though. Group 1 is already covered for emergent situations, and I'm not a big fan of handing out entitlements to folks who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. The only group that I might have some sympathy for is #4, which are the "working poor" that don't qualify for Medicaid yet can't afford health insurance. The best type of healthcare reform should be targeted at this group of people, preferably with some financial incentives to help them buy (or make up the difference for) healthcare insurance or perhaps expand Medicaid to cover them.

You forgot #6 - People who have a pre-existing condition, even if it's a mild case of Asthma or a documented sinus infection.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Thats why we need to get rid of those stupid laws. If they can't pay, they should be thrown out in the street.

Should we just give you a gun and then you can shoot them too?

Troll.

Its called business sense. These hospitals aren't charities. They need to make money to survive. They need to pay doctors, charge customers, and purchase expensive equipment. If you force the hospitals to accept everyone, they'll be going out of business. You don't expect restaurants to just give free meals to every bum that comes in asking for food do you?

And when you see an old lady who falls down in the street you shouldn't burn precious calories to help her up. If you see someone on fire, don't put them out... you might get hurt! Better yet, tell them you'll put them out if they give you money to go get some water.

Our society made the decision decades ago that we are unwilling to allow sick people to die in the streets, if you don't like that... that's fine. Unfortunately for you, you are in the absolute ultra-right batshit insano fringe that wishes to allow this to happen and so your views will be ignored. You are most likely very young or have never known someone who has become sick/injured without insurance. You also probably haven't thought through the consequences of what you propose and the difficulties of implementation.

It's easy to spout ideological nonsense when you know there's absolutely zero chance of anyone actually trying to put it into practice.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Thats why we need to get rid of those stupid laws. If they can't pay, they should be thrown out in the street.

Should we just give you a gun and then you can shoot them too?

Troll.

Its called business sense. These hospitals aren't charities. They need to make money to survive. They need to pay doctors, charge customers, and purchase expensive equipment. If you force the hospitals to accept everyone, they'll be going out of business. You don't expect restaurants to just give free meals to every bum that comes in asking for food do you?

And when you see an old lady who falls down in the street you shouldn't burn precious calories to help her up. If you see someone on fire, don't put them out... you might get hurt! Better yet, tell them you'll put them out if they give you money to go get some water.

Our society made the decision decades ago that we are unwilling to allow sick people to die in the streets, if you don't like that... that's fine. Unfortunately for you, you are in the absolute ultra-right batshit insano fringe that wishes to allow this to happen and so your views will be ignored. You are most likely very young or have never known someone who has become sick/injured without insurance. You also probably haven't thought through the consequences of what you propose and the difficulties of implementation.

It's easy to spout ideological nonsense when you know there's absolutely zero chance of anyone actually trying to put it into practice.

Came back here and couldn't have said it better myself.

Only someone very naive / young / who hasn't seen loved ones suffer / purely being a troll would say something so insane.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...for-public-option.html

He does a very in depth several polls and ranks them based on how partisan the question/answers are, how well the question was worded, sample size, etc.

The two most trustworthy polls KFF and the NBC/WSJ poll show a 65%, 68%, and 76% (KFF had 2 separate questions that resulted in the 65/68 split).

I don't think there should be anymore debate about what the American people actually want, based on this data, it's quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans WANT the public option.

I'm all for the public option but as long as I don't have to subsidize others.

You are subsidizing others, you just don't know it. When hospitals admit people without insurance who can't pay, they just pass those costs back to us.

Thats why we need to get rid of those stupid laws. If they can't pay, they should be thrown out in the street.

Should we just give you a gun and then you can shoot them too?

Troll.

Its called business sense. These hospitals aren't charities. They need to make money to survive. They need to pay doctors, charge customers, and purchase expensive equipment. If you force the hospitals to accept everyone, they'll be going out of business. You don't expect restaurants to just give free meals to every bum that comes in asking for food do you?

And when you see an old lady who falls down in the street you shouldn't burn precious calories to help her up. If you see someone on fire, don't put them out... you might get hurt! Better yet, tell them you'll put them out if they give you money to go get some water.

Our society made the decision decades ago that we are unwilling to allow sick people to die in the streets, if you don't like that... that's fine. Unfortunately for you, you are in the absolute ultra-right batshit insano fringe that wishes to allow this to happen and so your views will be ignored. You are most likely very young or have never known someone who has become sick/injured without insurance. You also probably haven't thought through the consequences of what you propose and the difficulties of implementation.

It's easy to spout ideological nonsense when you know there's absolutely zero chance of anyone actually trying to put it into practice.

That's called personal charity. If you want to do those things yourself, go ahead. If charities want to provide free health care, be my guest. I have nothing against charities who want to do kind deeds. In fact, we need more of them. However, the US government is not a charity. The taxpayers won't fund "free" healthcare for the lazy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

And when you see an old lady who falls down in the street you shouldn't burn precious calories to help her up. If you see someone on fire, don't put them out... you might get hurt! Better yet, tell them you'll put them out if they give you money to go get some water.

Our society made the decision decades ago that we are unwilling to allow sick people to die in the streets, if you don't like that... that's fine. Unfortunately for you, you are in the absolute ultra-right batshit insano fringe that wishes to allow this to happen and so your views will be ignored. You are most likely very young or have never known someone who has become sick/injured without insurance. You also probably haven't thought through the consequences of what you propose and the difficulties of implementation.

It's easy to spout ideological nonsense when you know there's absolutely zero chance of anyone actually trying to put it into practice.

That's called personal charity. If you want to do those things yourself, go ahead. If charities want to provide free health care, be my guest. I have nothing against charities who want to do kind deeds. In fact, we need more of them. However, the US government is not a charity. The taxpayers won't fund "free" healthcare for the lazy.

Like I said, you're either very young or you have never known someone sick/injured without insurance, and rest assured there are many ways not to have insurance that don't involve being 'lazy'. Your views will change when you more fully understand the issue.

Right now you're just on the lunatic fringe, so it doesn't really matter what you think. I'm sure it enables you to act crazier than you would if your views actually had a hope of being enacted, but I guess that doesn't really matter much does it?

 

[Hacp]

Like I said, you're either very young or you have never known someone sick/injured without insurance, and rest assured there are many ways not to have insurance that don't involve being 'lazy'. Your views will change when you more fully understand the issue.

Right now you're just on the lunatic fringe, so it doesn't really matter what you think. I'm sure it enables you to act crazier than you would if your views actually had a hope of being enacted, but I guess that doesn't really matter much does it?

Just because someone has a real grievance and is in need does not mean that the US government is obligated to help that person. If you're caught without insurance, well tough luck. Life's rough. If we help everyone who is down, our taxes will be unsustainable.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Like I said, you're either very young or you have never known someone sick/injured without insurance, and rest assured there are many ways not to have insurance that don't involve being 'lazy'. Your views will change when you more fully understand the issue.

Right now you're just on the lunatic fringe, so it doesn't really matter what you think. I'm sure it enables you to act crazier than you would if your views actually had a hope of being enacted, but I guess that doesn't really matter much does it?

Just because someone has a real grievance and is in need does not mean that the US government is obligated to help that person. If you're caught without insurance, well tough luck. Life's rough. If we help everyone who is down, our taxes will be unsustainable.

And if everyone acted like life was a zero-sum game we never would of gotten out of caves.

 

[ProfJohn]

Paige... you think we would still be in caves if we had a completely socialistic society?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Paige... you think we would still be in caves if we had a completely socialistic society?

The biggest problem would be finding so many caves of equal size.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Paige... you think we would still be in caves if we had a completely socialistic society?

That's obviously not what he meant. He was speaking about altruism in general, a tool so effective it is almost certainly evolutionarily ingrained in us.

That, and he was responding to an exceptionally stupid post. In America we help people who are sick, it's part of who we are. If you want to argue against it, just try and pass a bill saying we aren't going to treat sick people anymore and let me know how that goes. Furthermore, the idea that we are somehow unable to help the sick is silly, as we do it currently and every other industrialized country on the planet does exactly that as well.

EDIT: Whoops, I missed your point too. Oops! Regardless, I still want to talk shit about hacp so I'll leave it here.

 

[ProfJohn]

eskimo... i agree, it was a stupid post.

 

[TruePaige]

Pretty much. Every day we have events that don't require us to do a thing but better the lives of someone.

Look at the times when education and information were kept for the noble only, and the lack of progress that ensued.

Or for a more technology related example, look at FOSS. Free software may not ever make the creator a dime but makes your life better.

Look at our education system. Can you imagine if huge amounts of the population had no access to education?

 

[shadow9d9]

Uninsured is only part of the problem. Inflated insurance costs that covers nothing because of "pre-existing conditions" is the problem. But the right wing noise machine keeps talking costs while we spent countless billions on unnecessary "defense."

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Hacp

Like I said, you're either very young or you have never known someone sick/injured without insurance, and rest assured there are many ways not to have insurance that don't involve being 'lazy'. Your views will change when you more fully understand the issue.

Right now you're just on the lunatic fringe, so it doesn't really matter what you think. I'm sure it enables you to act crazier than you would if your views actually had a hope of being enacted, but I guess that doesn't really matter much does it?

Just because someone has a real grievance and is in need does not mean that the US government is obligated to help that person. If you're caught without insurance, well tough luck. Life's rough. If we help everyone who is down, our taxes will be unsustainable.

And if everyone acted like life was a zero-sum game we never would of gotten out of caves.

When did I say it was a zero-sum game? If we raise taxes to fund this, then the economy won't grow as fast and the pie will be smaller for everyone. Higher taxes means more inefficiencies and more dead weight loss. If people want to personally donate to a fund which provides free health insurance, thats fine by me. I think that's a good and noble deed. However, taxing people so a select few can benefit is not fair.