What political party do you vote with?

that'll cost ya :mickey:

 

i agree, as long as it is a price relative to their income

 

we have the nhs, and they don't bill in canada etc. - to a degree, all healthcare should be free.

i can't believe they put a price on a life in america. it's deeply unethical!

 

i know full well that in the exsisting system my vote won't count because the system is flawed--in order to maintain the status quo our government must be reactionary. so anyone who votes outside the sysytem, their votes are meaningless. but if i'm going to vote anyway, i will vote the sp-usa--the socialist party. paisley skye.

 

If you refuse to participate you should get left behind. Deal with the source, and eliminate the middleman. I can't see how a rational case can be made to shift responsibility to another or others based solely on the fact that another or others can provide or afford to provide your needs. You appear to think that the poor are a result of a criminal activity, and those who are not poor should be judged as criminals. Essentially you appear to support the view of "If you can't or won't earn it, steal it." Fringe Left, I would say.

 

Pain, suffering, life and death are not unique to humans alone. I think it is compassion and empathy that you are concentrating on, and the imposition of a concept on feelings is inhumane, and requires an authoritarian form of democracy.

 

That's absolutely stupid. Price should relate only to the cost of production and profits relate to the willingness of consumers to pay that price. How long could a business stay in business if they sold their products or services at less than their cost? Only government, which has power to increase the money supply can remain functional while going deeper and deeper in debt, but even government eventually reaches a point of collapse, as history shows us.

 

It's time you removed the Al Gore lie from your signature. And fact-checked the rest.

 

i'm a free market advocate as people know, but this is somewhat misplaced

i mean, the mark up on many drugs means even a considerable price reduction would not effect profit - it's one of the most inflated markets there is. due to the fact i do not agree with making profit over health, i believe if anything healthcare should be at least relative to its break even cost, if not free.

capitalism, as a mechanic, is made to allow each individual to prosper - not place barriers between the rich and the poor.

ask yourself, how many people actually like being ill? it's not a system that is exploited by people, if it were cheaper people wouldn't be breaking their own legs to take advantage of the healthcare available to them.

 

First off, anyone who breaks their own leg to take advantage of the health care available to them should have it amputated.

If health care should be free or without profit, why do not more on the Left just begin to provide it fort free or at cost instead of demanding those who now provide it to do so. Competition would put the "for profits" out of business quite quickly.
Any time something is provided for free, there will be those who take advantage of it and exploit it, but there are many costs to providing health care besides the cost of the care alone, first the drugs have to be discovered, developed, tested, and approved for use. Then there may be undiscovered side effects which end up in court cases and fines. And Doctors and Nurses who are expected to perform flawlessly can also be sued for mistakes, even when beyond their control. How much money is spent on bringing a new drug to market? And in many third world countries who are much poorer than Americans, U.S. produced drugs are made available below cost, which is offset by raising the prices to developed world consumers.

 

you clearly haven't understood the point of my satire.

as for this 'out of business' ordeal - you're describing something called destroyer pricing. it's illegal. hence, companies shouldn't attempt to monopolize and push 'for profit' businesses out of the market

instead, for profit should be obliterated.

it's not like it doesn't work. i live in a country with a, at present, majority right wing party - we have free healthcare. the american way of dealing with healthcare is heavily criticized - it's damn unethical.

i wish you all the health in the world, but say you got knocked down by a bus tomorrow - you would probably change your mind. i hate repeating myself, but equality and equal rights are not the same

socialism, left wing = equality

you are confusing their mantra. what of healthcare - is it an equal right for people to live?

 

um, um, um...

so which is it?

 

I've worked hard all my life and that dick-weed accused me of advocating theft. Which I don't and haven't. You can't argue with people who are suck-asses to the rich. They disgust me.

 

that is a little bit rude, isn't it?

 

Yes,it's very rude. I gave up arguing with right-wing people many times and I'm doing it again. I just lose my temper and after 12 years on these forums i've never -ever gotten even 1 concession from them regarding my ideas. I should know better by now and I'm gone outta here for good. You guys carry on --but I think you know you'll get nothing. I wish anyone well as a fellow human--but I've worked my ass off since I was 14 and I'm 72 right now (and still working because I like what I do)and have much experience at union and non union jobs and how the powerfull treat working people. Alright---I'm rambling. Adios ---------

 

i have always been rational with my opinions. i'd happily talk shop with you, it's nothing personal i hope.

it is unfair to assume things of richer folk, though. i am only young and i have made my own money and am comfortable - no one pushed me to do these things.

 

All have a "right" to live, but the exercise of rights require the recognition of responsibilities.

There are no buses where I live, but if there were I think I would first exercise my responsibility to assure there was none approaching prior to putting myself in a position to be hit by one.

socialism, left wing = equality of outcome/income (sort of like forced unionization in the work place but applied to society as a whole)

 

so what of starving children in africa? you are sort of arguing a straw man here - i'll just agree to disagree.

i understand what you are saying, and agree with it, just not regarding human needs - but rather regarding human wants.

 

You left out the starving children in Asia, Europe, South America, Australia, and of course North America. But what about them? Does the right to have children take precedence over the responsibility to feed them? Rewarding irresponsibility only shifts greater responsibility to those who are most responsible. Although I do support charities who provide food and other forms of aid directly to needy populations, I don't think it should be government sourced. People who receive aid of any form need to understand that it is other people, not government and elected politicians who are actually providing their needs. Charity has become a political tool elevating politicians above the real providers of what is provided.

You only mentioned children, why did you eliminate the adults?

 

oh god. yeah, alright - let us list every group of people who need aid shall we? you failed to mention my struggling bin man on minimum wage

hurrah!

it was simply an example.


you've lost me anyways, you say you disagree with government sourced healthcare, then say people should understand 'where and who the money comes from' - we both know the answer, taxes. so you are correct, it is other people

but what else would you rather the government spend your tax money on?

and for the record, i don't know why we are talking about charity. to digress and heed the point somewhat, private charity barely works - government (the un) have implemented the millennium goals that i think, if taken seriously, is a much better plan.