SocialismFollow

No, shame on you!

I just fly to Denmark on my Leer Jet when I need medical attention.

What's that you say? Not everyone can afford to fly to Denmark on a Leer Jet?

Let them fly coach.

And don't scratch my fu[i][/i]cking luggage.

Nevermind, I mistook the small text at the end of his post to be his signature, upon looking at another post of his, it turns out that it is not.

We now return to DK's post already in progress.

Well for starters you could take the 5 billion dollars that the US is giving to Israel, Egypt and Jordan this year and put it into your health system.

Can we take the money we're giving to your country too? I have no idea what country it is, but since we pretty much give money to everyone in some fashion, it's a safe call.

Personally, I have no idea what we need universal health care for. If you are over the age of 18 and can't afford health care, it's because of a choice you made. Don't expect me to pay for your choices. Don't give me the "What about the retards?" argument, I have no sympathy for much of anyone.

100 dollar co-pays? jeebus. if i remember correctly our (and by our i mean my family's) co-pay for a doctors visit is either 15 or 20 dollars.

four posts up from you :)

Moe, I doubt the US is giving foreign aid to Australia, but if they are, you're welcome to keep it hehe.

I have neither the time or the patience to look through fiscal '03s budget, but I would be willing to bet that Australia, just like every other country on the planet, has its hand out in some way to the great slot machine that is the US Congress (currently in the hands of the Republicans who are proving to be less than amazing when it comes to tightening the wheels).

Don't kid yourselves, all you left wingers out there. That's a call for a higher level of conservativism, not a change in the guard.

I'm a bit curious here. You have to pay the first 1k of a hospital stay/surgery etc..., right?

That's not the same as a co-pay. A copayment is the portion of a normal scheduled doctor's visit that you have to pay (which the insurance pays the rest). Sure. Technically, they're the same principle, but most health insurance makes a huge difference between how they handle payments for emergency proceedures, surguries, and hospital stays compared to how they handle your yearly medical checkup, or your flu shot.

I'm fairly confident that you don't have to pay 1k to get a flu shot. I'm also a bit confused about the "If I have a kid, that's 2k". Um... You and your child are both going to have surgury at the same time? Unlikely unless you get into a car crash or something. You made it sound like you'd be paying 2k every time you went to a doctor for a checkup. That's just not true...



Most "preventive" medical actions are affordable by the vast majority of people in the US, whether they've got medical insurance or not. You can walk into just about any clinic in the country (look in the damn Yellow Pages if you don't know where one is!), and get a checkup and basic care, and maybe be out 50 bucks tops. I lived for 10 years with no health insurance (making barely over minimum wage). It's really not that hard folks.

The reason why most folks don't get preventative medication is because they either would rather spend their money on something else, or they just choose not to go to a doctor until it's very serious. The same people who ***** that they can't afford to spend 20 bucks a month on medicine for their kid's earache will have an eternal 12 pack of beer in the fridge (and often a drug habit of their own). I've seen this waaaay to many times folks. If you can buy beer, you can buy medicine for your kid.


I've known poor parents who wouldn't take their kids to the doctor when sick, even when the copay for them was like $5. They "can't afford it" (their words). Yet, there they are smoking a cigarette out of a pack that cost them 4 bucks...


Responsibility starts at home folks. I'll be the first in line to vote in a national "free medical care" law, the day that even 50% of the population that would use it will meet it halfway.

Nope. You've got it backwards. It's not that poor people all spend their money on drugs and booze. It's the other way around. People who spend all their money on drugs and booze ultimately end up "poor". Think about it...

I'm saying that when you are poor, you need to learn how to budget. Whether it's because of booze, or drugs, or smokes, or just bad spending habits, most people don't budget well. I presented examples of people buying beer or drugs, but it could be anything. I was not by any means trying to imply that all poor people drink beer and/or use drugs.

I am saying that the vast majority of people can afford to pay for basic, preventive, medical care. They choose to spend their money on other things instead. Even with ludicrously low co-pays (like $5 for someone on disability insurance), most people will come up with some reason why they can't afford it.

Pick whatever examples you want Joph. The movie tickets they bought at 8 bucks a piece last week. Or the playstation they bought for their kids. Or the cable TV service they have to have. Believe it or not, those are all luxuries. Yet, I challenge you to find more then 1% of the US population that doesn't spend money on at least some of those things.


So sure. Find me that 1% (or insert your own percent here if you want, you and I both know it's very low). Feel free to give them free medical exams. I have no problem with that. My problem is that if I my tax dollars go to pay even 5 dollars of someone's co-payment, and that person spent 5 dollars during that time period on a "luxury", then what my tax dollars have really been spent on was to buy that person that luxury, not the medical care. See how that works? I have no problems providing services to the truly needy. I just find it hard to feel that someone is needy if they have even simple luxuries around them. If you can save up money to buy a playstation, then you can save up money to make a copayment for a medical exam. It's really a matter of priorities. If someone can't make an honest attempt to meet "the system" half way, then I don't feel the system owes them anything. And when my tax dollars go to paying for that "system", then you damn well can believe I'm going to expect alot from those who want to recieve the benefits.

Lol. Appology indeed. Any comparison between the poor in the US today, and the poor as depicted by d!ckens is pretty much restricted to the fact we put the label "poor" on both.

I know it plays out better the other way, but the fact is that the vast majority of "poor" in the US live lives that any group of "poor" people throughout all history would have sold a child in order to obtain, and many "poor" in other countries today would still do. When one of our major problems in this country is dealing with the influx of people from other nations who are willing to risk life and limb so they can pick fruit for less then minimum wage here in the US, or work as indentured servants indefinately just so they can live here, I think it's questionable at best to paint the "poor" in the US with the same brush as is used elsewhere in the world.

People come from other countries because they believe the ******** propaganda about having an equal opportunity to become WEALTHY by moving here. Not because it's such a fabulous place to be poor.

People don't enter the lottery becaue loosing isn't as bad as loosing to a bookie who breaks your legs. They enter it because they want to win the jackpot.

Were you going to move somehwere to be poor, the US certainly wouldn't be it. The US has the absolute worst conditions for those living in poverty of any first world nation.

Easily.