A Hospital Bill Example: Ruptured Appendix Removal

[morning]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I don't know why we even argue Healthcare reform is just a smokescreen for wholesale government control to help establish the new world utopia. The fact we are arguing shows that the smoke screen is working and they are winning. Thats whats LOL.

wut

 

[justaregularmed]

wut

You must of missed my post about egalitarianism. The issue of healthcare as a means to an end. Just like climate change. Immigration...and so forth.

These issues are all very clear and not many sane people have a problem with trying to rectify them. Its just the misuse and the means that are the problem.

 

[RadioCure]

One thing I will say is that if we lived in a truly free society the people would vote on such matters.

Yea, and prop 8 would still be standing. Is that your idea of a free society? Unbridled democracy can be ugly.

 

[NickNaylor]

My mistake. So what you were trying to say was that Medicare has no incentive to improve because it has unlimited funds?

Ok. I'll just pretend in the meantime that what you actually didn't run away from this argument. I don't blame you. Rebuttals and counter-arguments are so passe nowadays. I mean, why bother arguing when you call your opponent stupid.

Try again.

Just take your hSDN icon and go back to that forum.

 

[surftheiop]

One thing I will say is that if we lived in a truly free society the people would vote on such matters.

What is so free about 51% of the population imposing their will on the 49%?

 

[45408]

One thing I will say is that if we lived in a truly free society the people would vote on such matters.

Or it would look kind of like the French Revolution.


It is rather telling that you've been dodging the aspect of positive rights and negative rights, because it does undermine your concept of health care being a right. Food and water are much more fundamental to basic survival than health care, but you don't have a right to free food and water.

 

[chman]

Yea, and prop 8 would still be standing. Is that your idea of a free society? Unbridled democracy can be ugly.

No, that is where you are wrong. Prop 8 is a matter of the constitution, which is never up for a vote. Besides, any true libertarian (which I believe you are claiming?) has no problem with gay marriage.

 

[chman]

Or it would look kind of like the French Revolution.


It is rather telling that you've been dodging the aspect of positive rights and negative rights, because it does undermine your concept of health care being a right. Food and water are much more fundamental to basic survival than health care, but you don't have a right to free food and water.

Like I said, I haven't read much on it and don't feel comfortable talking out my arse about something I don't know. That is not dodging, that is being honest.

If I have time today, perhaps I will read about it. In the meanwhile, go through this thread and see how many are "dodging questions," and call them out as well. I feel I have been as up front about my views as possible.


The very short answer is I think those should be rights (basic food and water). The facts are we spend more than enough in wasteful spending to feed the world multiple times over. It is rather silly to get on people like me, who want people to have some basic human necessities in the richest country in the world, instead of funding the military industrial complex. Crazy me.

 

[45408]

The very short answer is I think those should be rights (basic food and water). The facts are we spend more than enough in wasteful spending to feed the world multiple times over. It is rather silly to get on people like me, who want people to have some basic human necessities in the richest country in the world, instead of funding the military industrial complex. Crazy me.

This isn't a military-industrial complex forum, otherwise I might start talking about those issues.

 

[surftheiop]

No, that is where you are wrong. Prop 8 is a matter of the constitution, which is never up for a vote. Besides, any true libertarian (which I believe you are claiming?) has no problem with gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[RadioCure]

Like I said, I haven't read much on it and don't feel comfortable talking out my arse about something I don't know. That is not dodging, that is being honest.

If I have time today, perhaps I will read about it. In the meanwhile, go through this thread and see how many are "dodging questions," and call them out as well. I feel I have been as up front about my views as possible.


The very short answer is I think those should be rights (basic food and water). The facts are we spend more than enough in wasteful spending to feed the world multiple times over. It is rather silly to get on people like me, who want people to have some basic human necessities in the richest country in the world, instead of funding the military industrial complex. Crazy me.

We probably don't have the kind of money you think we do. If you were to spread the wealth evenly over the planet, Americans would give up 75% of what they have. Imagine what everyone you know could do with a quarter of what they have now. Clean water is also projected to become the next scarce liquid over which wars will be fought.

 

[Kaustikos]

We probably don't have the kind of money you think we do. If you were to spread the wealth evenly over the planet, Americans would give up 75% of what they have. Imagine what everyone you know could do with a quarter of what they have now. Clean water is also projected to become the next scarce liquid over which wars will be fought.

I don't think so

http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/quantum_of_solace.jpg

 

[RadioCure]

No, that is where you are wrong. Prop 8 is a matter of the constitution, which is never up for a vote. Besides, any true libertarian (which I believe you are claiming?) has no problem with gay marriage.

I thought you were making a claim about what a truly free society would be - one in which things like the constitution hold no ground and issues are just put up to a vote. I'm pointing out that the popular vote on the Prop 8 issue was an attack on freedom and an attack on the minority by the majority. Only by limiting the power of democracy with a constitution designed to prevent such things can a society be just. I think we're agreeing here.

It can also apply to healthcare, and depending on how you interpret the constitution, the healthcare bill is in violation of it just like Prop 8 is.

Also, nobody should be able to vote on a bill without reading it in its entirety.

 

[PremedGunner]

I support charity with both money and time, I do it because I receive a benefit, I derive pleasure from supporting good causes. If I'm pressured by the government, and by pressured I mean taxed, I don't care how great the cause, I object on a matter of a principle. The ideal government is the nightwatchman state as was put forth by the preeminent libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick. Beyond police, fire, a military and a judiciary it's impossible to justify more government.

what about the sec? who's going to regulate financial markets? who's going to set interest rates?

what about the fda making sure that we aren't being sold snake oil?

isn't the faa needed to make sure planes don't crash?

without the dmv, what will ensure that people who aren't qualified to drive don't drive? will everyone be allowed to drive?

 

[Kaustikos]

what about the sec? who's going to regulate financial markets? who's going to set interest rates?

what about the fda making sure that we aren't being sold snake oil?

isn't the faa needed to make sure planes don't crash?

without the dmv, what will ensure that people who aren't qualified to drive don't drive? will everyone be allowed to drive?

You're just...too cute with your posts 👎

 

[chman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

\

I was saying that the people do not have the right to vote to change the constitution when it pleases them. The congress can add amendments, but they too cannot change it to the best of my knowledge.

We probably don't have the kind of money you think we do. If you were to spread the wealth evenly over the planet, Americans would give up 75% of what they have. Imagine what everyone you know could do with a quarter of what they have now. Clean water is also projected to become the next scarce liquid over which wars will be fought.

I was not saying we should feed the world, just those in this country. But to run with what you are saying, I'm sure most Americans could cut their water consumption by 75% and still have plenty, but that is a different issue altogether.

I thought you were making a claim about what a truly free society would be - one in which things like the constitution hold no ground and issues are just put up to a vote. I'm pointing out that the popular vote on the Prop 8 issue was an attack on freedom and an attack on the minority by the majority. Only by limiting the power of democracy with a constitution designed to prevent such things can a society be just. I think we're agreeing here.

It can also apply to healthcare, and depending on how you interpret the constitution, the healthcare bill is in violation of it just like Prop 8 is.

Also, nobody should be able to vote on a bill without reading it in its entirety.

I should have been more clear. I think that the people should be able to vote on major policy issues that their tax dollars go towards. I am not a radical that does not believe in the constitution or does not see the need for it. In fact, I think it is one of the finest documents ever written.

Where you and I are in disagreement, is comparing a policy issue that has to do with medical care, that has no mention in the constitution, and a civil rights issue that is. People voted for all kinds of measures that banned interacial couples for example, but that is unjust and against the constitution.

[YOUTUBE]d4Krpwo2YsI[/YOUTUBE]


There is a part two to this video that isn't working, but you can find on youtube by clicking on this one.

 

[surftheiop]

\

I was saying that the people do not have the right to vote to change the constitution when it pleases them. The congress can add amendments, but they too cannot change it to the best of my knowledge.

Amendments can originate in congress or from state legislatures

If the amendment process is followed, the states and congress can change whatever they want in the constitution (with the single exception of denying an individual state proper representation in the senate).

If 3/4 of the state legislatures approved it, the constitution could be changed to make it illegal for white people to be president.

 

[chman]

Amendments can originate in congress or from state legislatures

If the amendment process is followed, the states and congress can change whatever they want in the constitution (with the single exception of denying an individual state proper representation in the senate).

If 3/4 of the state legislatures approved it, the constitution could be changed to make it illegal for white people to be president.

I guess I'm wrong then. I thought that they were in fact allowed to add things to the constitution, but were not allowed to mess with things such as the bill of rights.

 

[Narmerguy]

It really seems hilarious that people want to cherry-pick the things that warrant governmental influence and those which don't.

We need the government to provide police to uphold the laws? And these laws were determined to preserve our ability to live a fulfilling life? What about drug laws? Why are we allowed to stop the crackheads from having a good time? Or child pornography laws? Or even childhood sex laws? If the kid consents to sex, let him have it right? Remember, this is a kid consenting!

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with every example I've given, laws are created to "protect" the citizens of the country from harm and what harm is can encompass many things. Protecting citizens from medical harm seems like a potential law that could exist and woah, then that has to be defended and provided for.

I think the problem with a lot of these arguments is that we've become so distorted in our riches and success relative to other nations that we begin to make arguments that others wouldn't even entertain for a moment. Somehow we can, largely, I believe, because of our perceived notion that we've individually earned everything that we enjoy which simply isn't so. Just imagine how circumstantial our ability to profit and live a comfortable life is for a few seconds.

 

[RadioCure]

Where you and I are in disagreement, is comparing a policy issue that has to do with medical care, that has no mention in the constitution, and a civil rights issue that is. People voted for all kinds of measures that banned interacial couples for example, but that is unjust and against the constitution.

When a policy dealing with medical care is forcing people to buy something, it becomes a constitutional issue:

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.

If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.

from this

I'm not saying I agree it's in violation of the constitution, simply that the line is not as clear as you are painting it.

 

[RadioCure]

It really seems hilarious that people want to cherry-pick the things that warrant governmental influence and those which don't.

We need the government to provide police to uphold the laws? And these laws were determined to preserve our ability to live a fulfilling life? What about drug laws? Why are we allowed to stop the crackheads from having a good time? Or child pornography laws? Or even childhood sex laws? If the kid consents to sex, let him have it right? Remember, this is a kid consenting!

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with every example I've given, laws are created to "protect" the citizens of the country from harm and what harm is can encompass many things. Protecting citizens from medical harm seems like a potential law that could exist and woah, then that has to be defended and provided for.

I think the problem with a lot of these arguments is that we've become so distorted in our riches and success relative to other nations that we begin to make arguments that others wouldn't even entertain for a moment. Somehow we can, largely, I believe, because of our perceived notion that we've individually earned everything that we enjoy which simply isn't so. Just imagine how circumstantial our ability to profit and live a comfortable life is for a few seconds.

I made this response earlier in this thread, but it seems it has become relevant again.


A necessary aspect of having a government in a society is to protect citizens from one another. This is the nature of "crime" as we commonly define it - a human doing harm to another. This is an aspect of government that cannot be done away with, as I think you would agree.

Another potential (but not necessary) aspect of government is to protect people from themselves. Our society would surely be a lot more stable and healthy if we banned all unhealthy foods, banned smoking, mandated 30 minutes of exercise a day, banned gambling, banned contact sports, banned sexual contact with more than one partner per lifetime.

WHY is it important to stop criminals who pose a threat to the bodily integrity of the citizenry, but NOT important to ensure their bodily integrity in other ways? Is it not disruptive to the country to have people die of preventable or treatable diseases? Is public health not as stabilizing to a country as a strong police force and judiciary?

We both know the answer in this case.

Are you willing to accept that in the case of government protecting our well-being from any possible angle, there are times when it is unjust, illogical, unsustainable, and uncalled for?

Yes, I did not address socialized medicine, and I didn't for a reason. The point is that it has to be taken on its own merits, it's own consequences, and its own realities. You don't just get to make a broad claim that the government should do whatever it can to promote bodily integrity and chalk it up as a win.

In short, "cherry-picking" is exactly what should be done when we deal with an issue. There are admittedly some things which absolutely must be in place for a government to exist, pretty much by definition. Everything else is up for debate.

 

[RadioCure]

I think the problem with a lot of these arguments is that we've become so distorted in our riches and success relative to other nations that we begin to make arguments that others wouldn't even entertain for a moment. Somehow we can, largely, I believe, because of our perceived notion that we've individually earned everything that we enjoy which simply isn't so. Just imagine how circumstantial our ability to profit and live a comfortable life is for a few seconds.

Speaking of cherry-picking, I wonder if you'd be willing to apply the same logic to other aspects of government. Let's take crime. Surely people are largely a product of socialization and culture in their upbringing; factors and forces outside of our control shape our personalities and behavior just as they shape our wealth.

If a man commits a murder, should the community he was brought up in be held partially responsible? Just imagine how circumstantial our ability to easily obey the law is for a few seconds. If you lived in the ghetto, the only way you can find to feed your family may be to sell drugs or join gangs.

 

[justaregularmed]

Speaking of cherry-picking, I wonder if you'd be willing to apply the same logic to other aspects of government. Let's take crime. Surely people are largely a product of socialization and culture in their upbringing; factors and forces outside of our control shape our personalities and behavior just as they shape our wealth.

If a man commits a murder, should the community he was brought up in be held partially responsible? Just imagine how circumstantial our ability to easily obey the law is for a few seconds. If you lived in the ghetto, the only way you can find to feed your family may be to sell drugs or join gangs.

Your trying to make sense out of the Utopian socialism, why do you bother.

 

[jrf794]

Quite frankly I'm of the opinion pony up or die. I don't believe there is a right to healthcare. I also believe the US spends way too much on chemo for terminal onc patients. Insurers shouldn't have to pay for life extending but non-lifesaving treatments. As to CT surg most of that is brought on by a lifetime of poor decisions, most healthy, svelte people don't need quadruple bypasses.

I'm always staggered by the utter lack of sympathy spoon-fed ********ers like yourself can attain. Don't bother responding, because quite honestly I can't and won't be bothered to read whatever Rand-inspired unintelligible garble you manage to retort with.

 

[RadioCure]

I'm always staggered by the utter lack of sympathy spoon-fed ********ers like yourself can attain. Don't bother responding, because quite honestly I can't and won't be bothered to read whatever Rand-inspired unintelligible garble you manage to retort with.

Summary of above:

You're a big mean poopy head. *places fingers firmly in ears*

 

[justaregularmed]

I'm always staggered by the utter lack of sympathy spoon-fed ********ers like yourself can attain. Don't bother responding, because quite honestly I can't and won't be bothered to read whatever Rand-inspired unintelligible garble you manage to retort with.

Again he is being very pragmatic about his definition of insurance, you miss the point entirely. He is entirely correct in what he is trying to say, "health insurance" (while it still exists in spirit in catastrophic plans) the insurance part no longer really exists. His point is really going back to a model where health insurance is really insurance and whatever social justice inspired idea you want is what it is.

 

[VicodinMan]

Try again.

Just take your hSDN icon and go back to that forum.

Ah, a lovely ad hominem. Quite original.

 

[Janieve]

Ah, a lovely ad hominem. Quite original.

Ah, a username, quote, and avatar based on a character on a popular, unrealistic medical television show. How original.

And hSDN to boot. Twenty bucks says you change to business as a college sophomore.

 

[morning]

Are you willing to accept that in the case of government protecting our well-being from any possible angle, there are times when it is unjust, illogical, unsustainable, and uncalled for?

Providing healthcare at lower cost to those who have less money is not a call to "protect our well-being from any possible angle", any more than providing a police force means we also must force people to lock their home and car doors, avoid walking alone late at night, leave abusive significant others, etc. Just because you do one thing does not mean you have to do EVERYTHING.

Although, personally, I'd love to see fast food taxed the way we tax cigarettes

 

[VicodinMan]

Why, this is an involuntary transfer taken to its natural conclusion. You see the principle is flawed. Taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong. It's theft. However, if the government does it, it's taxation. The issue is taking medical care with no intention to pay is theft as well. You attempt to avoid the issue saying that involuntary transfers are necessary and that an arbitrary thing can become a right. What else should become rights?

Just finished skimming through Wikipedia. Nozick sounds pretty interesting and I'm definitely heading to Border's tomorrow to pick up a copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

The internet? It wasn't around when the founding fathers were.

You're comparing a basic right (the right to life) vs a positive right (I'm assuming you meant access to the Internet). Kind of like apples to oranges.

Which brings me to what I meant to say.

1. Lay off the Nozick and Rand. You have no clue what they were truly writing about (Here's a hint: It's about property rights, not basic rights). Think that healthcare isn't related to the right to life? Then by all means, go into business. Medicine can do without your kind.

2. Go and volunteer at a homeless shelter or hospice and learn something called compassion. It's a valuable life skill. You'll need it.

 

[RadioCure]

Providing healthcare at lower cost to those who have less money is not a call to "protect our well-being from any possible angle", any more than providing a police force means we also must force people to lock their home and car doors, avoid walking alone late at night, leave abusive significant others, etc. Just because you do one thing does not mean you have to do EVERYTHING.

Although, personally, I'd love to see fast food taxed the way we tax cigarettes

I never said you had to do everything; that was actually my point. 🙄

I also did not claim providing healthcare was "a call to protect our well-being from any possible angle." I didn't make any claims about healthcare in that post for exactly this reason, and even stated that I didn't, but I should have known someone would put words in my mouth anyway.

 

[45408]

Think that healthcare isn't related to the right to life? Then by all means, go into business. Medicine can do without your kind.

Most of medicine is composed of his kind.

 

[RadioCure]

Just finished skimming through Wikipedia. Nozick sounds pretty interesting and I'm definitely heading to Border's tomorrow to pick up a copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia.



You're comparing a basic right (the right to life) vs a positive right (I'm assuming you meant access to the Internet). Kind of like apples to oranges.

Which brings me to what I meant to say.

1. Lay off the Nozick and Rand. You have no clue what they were truly writing about (Here's a hint: It's about property rights, not basic rights). Think that healthcare isn't related to the right to life? Then by all means, go into business. Medicine can do without your kind.

2. Go and volunteer at a homeless shelter or hospice and learn something called compassion. It's a valuable life skill. You'll need it.

Ooooh, look! Another liberal claiming that only liberals can be good doctors. It's so cute!

 

[chman]

Ooooh, look! Another liberal claiming that only liberals can be good doctors. It's so cute!

Where? I believe it was stated compassion was necessary. Funny that you would equate it as such though.😀

Does anyone else have political adds at the top of SDN from commenting on this thread? haha

 

[RadioCure]

Where? I believe it was stated compassion was necessary. Funny that you would equate it as such though.😀

Does anyone else have political adds at the top of SDN from commenting on this thread? haha

Here:

Think that healthcare isn't related to the right to life? Then by all means, go into business. Medicine can do without your kind.

This sentence means "If you don't think healthcare is a right, don't be a doctor."

The quote below that one is the one about compassion, which I do agree with. 🙂

 

[chman]

Here:



This sentence means "If you don't think healthcare is a right, don't be a doctor."

The quote below that one is the one about compassion, which I do agree with. 🙂

I was just kidding. This thread has pretty much run it's course as far as I'm concerned. BTW, I don't consider myself "liberal," in the popular sense of the word, which is very bastardized, just like conservative. And I am for dang sure ain't no democrat.

 

[RadioCure]

I was just kidding. This thread has pretty much run it's course as far as I'm concerned. BTW, I don't consider myself "liberal," in the popular sense of the word, which is very bastardized, just like conservative. And I am for dang sure ain't no democrat.

I really dislike political labels of all types, although it's pretty hard not to use them. We have to group people by ideology somehow to make conversation fluid, but labels seem to promote adherence for adherence's sake. Instead of thinking about things and making up their own mind, a people who call themselves Republicans (or Democrats, or whatever) will simply see what the "Republican stance" on the issue is and go with that. It makes me rage.

 

[chman]

I really dislike political labels of all types, although it's pretty hard not to use them. We have to group people by ideology somehow to make conversation fluid, but labels seem to promote adherence for adherence's sake. Instead of thinking about things and making up their own mind, a people who call themselves Republicans (or Democrats, or whatever) will simply see what the "Republican stance" on the issue is and go with that. It makes me rage.

Very true.

 

[Janieve]

You know, the sad thing is that after accidentally reading the comments on an article about the controversy surrounding the proposed mosque two blocks from the WTC site, this is actually very relaxing to read.

Is this debate going to continue? I'm waiting for more to read.

 

[RadioCure]

You know, the sad thing is that after accidentally reading the comments on an article about the controversy surrounding the proposed mosque two blocks from the WTC site, this is actually very relaxing to read.

Is this debate going to continue? I'm waiting for more to read.

This one is just about done I'd say. Don't worry, it'll start all over the next time someone starts a thread that can be related to the healthcare debate by less than 6 degrees of separation.

 

[chman]

You know, the sad thing is that after accidentally reading the comments on an article about the controversy surrounding the proposed mosque two blocks from the WTC site, this is actually very relaxing to read.

Is this debate going to continue? I'm waiting for more to read.

I was reading that too, if you are talking about the doctors lounge. That place gives me a political headache every time.

 

[Janieve]

I was reading that too, if you are talking about the doctors lounge. That place gives me a political headache every time.

Yeah. God, and here I though I could adapt myself to it, but I can't. Now I remember why I avoid it. Tylenol (and perhaps percocet) could NOT fix half the damage it causes.

 

[morning]

Yeah. God, and here I though I could adapt myself to it, but I can't. Now I remember why I avoid it. Tylenol (and perhaps percocet) could NOT fix half the damage it causes.

The Sociopolitical forum has all the charm of a burning building.

 

[Fort]

Wow. Sounds like I got a terrific deal!

Mine was only $12,000!

Granted I'm glad my life was saved that day.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

Just finished skimming through Wikipedia. Nozick sounds pretty interesting and I'm definitely heading to Border's tomorrow to pick up a copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia.



You're comparing a basic right (the right to life) vs a positive right (I'm assuming you meant access to the Internet). Kind of like apples to oranges.

Which brings me to what I meant to say.

1. Lay off the Nozick and Rand. You have no clue what they were truly writing about (Here's a hint: It's about property rights, not basic rights). Think that healthcare isn't related to the right to life? Then by all means, go into business. Medicine can do without your kind.

2. Go and volunteer at a homeless shelter or hospice and learn something called compassion. It's a valuable life skill. You'll need it.

I do go out every friday night to work with the homeless on the streets of Miami, the more I see the less empathetic I am. Mostly they're just looking for handouts. The same with non-payers. It is immoral to take my labor and to not compensate me. You misinterperet the right to life as somehow including healthcare. The right to life means not being killed for any reason i.e. the whim of a ruler. It has nothing to do with access to healthcare.

I feel the "your kind" statement is a little assinine. Because most physicians are poor businessman is why it is doing so poorly right now.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

Ah, a lovely ad hominem. Quite original.

Can't take ad hominems but enjoy dishing them out. It's a cute double standard.

 

[morning]

I do go out every friday night to work with the homeless on the streets of Miami, the more I see the less empathetic I am. Mostly they're just looking for handouts. The same with non-payers. It is immoral to take my labor and to not compensate me. You misinterperet the right to life as somehow including healthcare. The right to life means not being killed for any reason i.e. the whim of a ruler. It has nothing to do with access to healthcare.

Again, you live off of handouts.

Until you're not, stop whining about other people who just want to mooch.

In other words...GET A JOB. Jeez.

 

[chman]

are poor businessman is why it is doing so poorly right now.

Ah, we should all have no problem getting in to med school then. After all, it is doing so poorly.

I also work with homeless people and I think you are once again oversimplifying. But I'm sure you don's see any homeless who were veterans and/or have mental disorders/diseases (this includes addiction).

 

[RadioCure]

Again, you live off of handouts.

Until you're not, stop whining about other people who just want to mooch.

In other words...GET A JOB. Jeez.

Yea man, don't you know you're not allowed to have an opinion on anything until you've experienced it?

How dare you have an opinion on the war in Iraq without being the president first! How dare you have an opinion on abortion without having one! How dare you have an opinion on dropping acid until you've tripped balls in the back of a van!

 

[RadioCure]

Ah, we should all have no problem getting in to med school then. After all, it is doing so poorly.

I also work with homeless people and I think you are once again oversimplifying. But I'm sure you don's see any homeless who were veterans and/or have mental disorders/diseases (this includes addiction).

I agree.

Anecdotal evidence is poor evidence, and attitudes of poor people shouldn't be much of an argument for this issue. "Looking for a handout" is a pretty subjective term as well, and people usually see the attitudes of others in light of their preconceptions. That is to say confirmation bias lets you remember the ungrateful people and forget the grateful ones because you want them to be ungrateful to help satisfy your political position.

Make your arguments from other angles is all I'm saying.