The O cited this stat in today's sales pitch. I have a pretty good idea how they came up with that stat. How do you think they developed the stat?
|
|
08-14-2009, 06:41 PM
The O cited this stat in today's sales pitch. I have a pretty good idea how they came up with that stat. How do you think they developed the stat?
08-14-2009, 06:44 PM
that's the # of people who lose their jobs a dayOriginally Posted by Nubs
08-14-2009, 07:05 PM
We have a winner. Man there are bright people here.
Now with the health care losses being the direct result of job losses, would it not be more benificial to get the people employed and have them pay for their own healthcare?
08-14-2009, 07:20 PM
And how does that give the political elite greater control over us?
08-14-2009, 08:26 PM
This will give the elite power over the masses by providing yet another social welfare hammock. Over time, government provided health care will eliminate one more of the fundemental duties in life. The fundemental duty of being able to provide for one's self and family.
Based on the Magnificent O's own statistical analysis, the issue of people loosing healthcare is not a problem of healthcare supply/affordability but an issue of employment.
08-14-2009, 08:41 PM
Sssshhh....those are facts...you know how liberals hate them....:Dwould it not be more benificial to get the people employed and have them pay for their own healthcare?
08-14-2009, 08:51 PM
To be fair, I think most citizens clamoring for NHC would claim that there are duties that extend BEYOND family... that society has a duty to ensure as best possible, the health of the individuals and families in it... and socialized medicine would be an expression of that duty... duty is precisely what motivates many to support the idea.
08-14-2009, 09:37 PM
It is my personal belief that my duties extend beyond my family, but my primary responsibility is to me and my family. I do not believe it is a governmental responsibility. I do give money and items to charity. I do not believe I should give money to the government so they can take a dollar, lose 18 cents of it, then give 82 cents of my original dollar back, and be grateful.
The Magnificent O is doing everything possible to stifle charitable contributions and private philanthropic endeavors. The government wants to be the provider of charity. They want us to depend on them reather than giving us the ability to take care of ourselves and others without government intrusion.
What would be better, more charitable, more kind to those that have not, the government providing an atmosphere where we can take care of ourselves or government creating an atmosphere where we are dependent on them?
08-14-2009, 09:49 PM
nubs - it's almost like they want a return to Feudalism.
08-14-2009, 10:11 PM
One of the primary expressions of "society's duty to provide healthcare" has always been the Christian-owned hospitals. From the very beginning, they charged those who could afford to pay, and gave away care to the indigent and poor. They still do exactly this...my hospital gave away over 7 million last year.
The biggest difference from founding to today is...you'll never guess...government interference. The government has tirelessly imposed draconian regulations, set reimbursement rates below cost, insisted on massive spending, and allowed ridiculous amounts in law suits. One particular unit of my hospital now spends $2000 every month for a procedure that used to be performed annually. It is now performed monthly
...not because we had any bad test results
...not because any patients were sickened
...not to provide any benefit for our patients at all
...but simply and totally due to changes in government regulations.
One unit, out of over 50 different departments in my hospital, and the government has caused them to spend an extra $22,000 this year.
Want to know why healthcare is so expensive? It's because Uncle Sam and his lawyers have their teeth set into it.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
