Health Care Reform a Welcome Change

[NeoSeminole]

IndiReloaded says:

"Nope, wrong again. Reading comprehension will be necessary for you to not hurt patients. Go find my post I'm not going to do your work for you."

a quick search turned up only this quote where you mention being in close proximity to PAs:

"I saw PAs all the time at my medicos office."

you never explicitly said you worked alongside PAs. You merely claim that you saw them. So either you're bluffing in the hopes that I will be gullible enough to fall for it or you imagined posting here that you worked with PAs. My bet is on the former scenario

[NeoSeminole]

Charlie Boy II says:

"all this time I thought you were studing to be a personal assistant."

what is a personal assistant? And when did I ever include the word "personal" to describe what I'm going to school for?

[IndiReloaded]

IndiReloaded says:

"Nope, wrong again. Reading comprehension will be necessary for you to not hurt patients. Go find my post I'm not going to do your work for you."

a quick search turned up only this quote where you mention being in close proximity to PAs:

"I saw PAs all the time at my medicos office."

you never explicitly said you worked alongside PAs. You merely claim that you saw them. So either you're bluffing in the hopes that I will be gullible enough to fall for it or you imagined posting here that you worked with PAs. My bet is on the former scenario

Correct. I never implicitly said it either. I'm glad you finally learned how to move from mere reading to reading comprehension.

[NeoSeminole]

Silly IndiReloaded says:

"Okay so what you are saying is you are a wannbe doctor b/c you weren't smart enough to go the whole way? Okay. I get it now. It makes perfect sense considering your 'potential' or lack of."

haha, PA school is even harder. We have half the time to learn 75% of what they teach in medical school. But if it makes you feel 'superior,' then go ahead and believe that I'm not smart enough to become a doctor like you.

[IndiReloaded]

PA school is harder than medical school. LOL, okay and this is why you graduate with a.... not-MD degree.

Yes, I do think you aren't smart enough.

So, from a patient perspective, what is it you can do that a nurse practioner cannot?

Are you ever going to answer this^?

[Only-virgins]

You are a doctor Indi?

[Sanctuary]

Williams S. Burroughs wrote: "There are no honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative merchandise like souls for quantitative merchandise like time and money."

Insurance companies exist to make a profit. Profit is not a moral argument. My argument is that people should not suffer because of the insane cost of healthcare. And now yours seems to be that it's perfectly justified to let them suffer so that insurance companies can continue to make profit. That's what you're saying basically.

I don't think these are comparable arguments since mine is a moral one and yours is a financial one. They're on completely different planes of debate and even if they were, I seriously doubt we'd end up seeing eye-to-eye.

Oh, and incidentally, money is printed on cotton and cotton grows on trees. (well, technically a bush, but close enough).

Actually, if you read my thread on this ([url]http://www.loveforum.net/off-topic-discussion/34959-obamas-healthcare-plan.html[/url]), my argument has always been a moral one (sort of but not really). I bring up the issue of money cuz that's the issue you brought up.

You want to talk to morals? Is it moral to steal from the rich to give to the poor? I'm not talking about insurance companies anymore. I'm talking about progressive taxation.

[MVPlaya]

Sanctuary, morals are always going to be in conflict. The point is to analyze which morals help you better in the long run. This "moral" of not taxing the rich, which is violated regardless of universal health care, does less for the public good than the moral of ensuring equal access to medical care.

When morals are in conflict, analyze what course of action is best for the public good.

[starbuck]

Actually, if you read my thread on this ([url]http://www.loveforum.net/off-topic-discussion/34959-obamas-healthcare-plan.html[/url]), my argument has always been a moral one (sort of but not really). I bring up the issue of money cuz that's the issue you brought up.

You want to talk to morals? Is it moral to steal from the rich to give to the poor? I'm not talking about insurance companies anymore. I'm talking about progressive taxation.

Oh good. There's a whole separate thread filled with people arguing VERY successfully against you who were pretty much saying the same thing I'm going to say. Glad I read it We can save ourselves pages of posts. Sanctuary, I'm surprised you still want to fight about this topic after that thread.

Is it morally right to steal from the rich to give to the poor? Actually it is. I think it is the moral duty of the people who have a greater share of wealth to help ease suffering of those who cannot help themselves. The government "steals" our taxes to help fund the production of tanks and bombs. I'd much rather be taxed to help ease the suffering of our poor. (P.S. Taking out taxes is not "stealing" if people vote on it. That's the way a Democracy works).

People need access to the most basic health care, and since insurance companies are not going to pick up that torch, then there should be a government option. (72 percent of Americans agree with me, btw). Personally I'd prefer to have a health care system more like Europe's and do away with most private insurers altogether. Obama's plan, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

There were actually way too many quotes I wanted to pull out from the other thread. Too many to choose from so I'll just use quote our illustrious Indi.

I think you can tell the measure of a people by how they treat their least.

There's your moral argument.

[bluesummer]

Is it morally right to steal from the rich to give to the poor? Actually it is. I think it is the moral duty of the people who have a greater share of priviledge to help ease suffering of those who cannot help themselves.

Hell yes. I believe we have a moral obligation to provide the necessities of life the those who can't afford it. Right now in Canada, the people making the most pay about 50% of their income to the gov't. It still pisses me off that corporations get tax cuts for so many things.

I'm not one to advocate people being on welfare or sponging off society. I actually despise lazy people that could get their shit together and earn a living but just choose not to. However, there are so many situations where people don't have a choice, and I would never wish ANYONE to have to suffer through health issues because they can't afford treatment.

Health care in Canada is free for the poor, or those making under a certain income level. Right now, I pay $54 a month for public health care. But that's tax deductible and it also means when I go into the hospital to have a baby or have surgery, I'm not having to take out a new mortgage on the house.

[Sanctuary]

The point is to analyze which morals help you better in the long run.

I've said before in the other thread that I feel that not taxing the rich helps us better in the long run.

Oh, and incidentally, money is printed on cotton and cotton grows on trees. (well, technically a bush, but close enough).

Actually, the Federal Reserve can print as much money as they want for whatever purpose they deem necessary and this year they have printed millions to intentionally cause inflation in the system (please don't take this comment out of context, they're doing it for the benefit of the country). So yes, money is kinda.. artificial in a way.

Oh good. There's a whole separate thread filled with people arguing VERY successfully against you who were pretty much saying the same thing I'm going to say. Glad I read it We can save ourselves pages of posts. Sanctuary, I'm surprised you still want to fight about this topic after that thread.

Now you're just making an ad hominem argument..

I think you're letting confirmation bias prevent you from viewing the thread objectively.

Is it morally right to steal from the rich to give to the poor? Actually it is. I think it is the moral duty of the people who have a greater share of wealth to help ease suffering of those who cannot help themselves. The government "steals" our taxes to help fund the production of tanks and bombs. I'd much rather be taxed to help ease the suffering of our poor.

What's your rationale for saying it's morally justified? Who are you to determine what's morally right and what's morally wrong?

There were actually way too many quotes I wanted to pull out from the other thread. Too many to choose from so I'll just use quote our illustrious Indi.

This is probably related - are you religious?

[MVPlaya]

Do you feel that privatizing all high schools and making people pay to go to school helps us in the long run? How about not spending money on maintaining roads? These are all things funded by taxes, for which the rich pay more money.

To quote a famous economist, "in the long run, we are all dead."

[IndiReloaded]

Sanctuary, could you please provide an example of a country that doesn't tax its rich and show how its better?

Here is a site that describes the present state of health care in Belize (a tax shelter country):

[url]http://www.internationalliving.com/Countries/Belize/Health-Care[/url]

[Sanctuary]

Do you feel that privatizing all high schools and making people pay to go to school helps us in the long run? How about not spending money on maintaining roads? These are all things funded by taxes, for which the rich pay more money.

To quote a famous economist, "in the long run, we are all dead."

lol nice John Maynard Keynes.

Didn't I address this already in the other thread?

If I didn't, I'll say it again - I feel education is of utmost importance to the development of a country but I don't feel free health care has the same effects. In fact it slows down GDP growth.

Roads are necessary too for obvious reasons.

Health care, however, I feel is a matter of opinion on how necessary it is. If you take into account an aggregate view of things, it doesn't seem very practical to me.

Sanctuary, could you please provide an example of a country that doesn't tax its rich and show how its better?

Here is a site that describes the present state of health care in Belize (a tax shelter country):

I'm not saying the rich should be exempt from taxes, that makes no sense. I'm saying an increasingly progressive tax system is detrimental.


If America is so bad, why do people from nations with free health care and extreme social safety nets come to this hellhole?
Because even though things aren't easy here, this place has more opportunity if you're willing to work for it.

[IndiReloaded]

If America is so bad, why do people from nations with free health care and extreme social safety nets come to this hellhole?
Because even though things aren't easy here, this place has more opportunity if you're willing to work for it.

Who says the US is bad? I'm just saying it could be better. So is Obama.

Lots of immigrants come to Canada, btw. Also Australia. In fact, I think they rank as the two highest immigration rates in the world. Both countries are great places to live, have decent economies (Canada didn't get nearly as trashed as the US in 2007) and have socialized healthcare.