Joe Biden promises to "provide health care for all"

[FutureInternist]

There are only so many ways to say, "I don't want the govt in those things"

And yet you use all of those government provided or subsidised services for yourself.

The same services that allowed you to not have to get the basic essentials for life by yourself, so you could pursue your path on becoming a doctor.

Now that you have achieved what you wanted, lets start denying it to everyone else coming up behind you.... disgusting.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted480308]

And yet you use all of those government provided or subsidised services for yourself.

The same services that allowed you to not have to get the basic essentials for life by yourself, so you could pursue your path on becoming a doctor.

Now that you have achieved what you wanted, lets start denying it to everyone else coming up behind you.... disgusting.

After govt forces it’s way into the market and distorts the whole thing? I have been consistent in wanting govt out of the deal. You can either accept that or not

 

[allantois]

The GOP opposes universal healthcare because they are bought and paid for by big corporations, not because they care about some libertarian ideals.

 

[deleted480308]

The GOP opposes universal healthcare because they are bought and paid for by big corporations, not because they care about some libertarian ideals.

I don’t care why they have that stance. They are right on this one

 

[FutureInternist]

After govt forces it’s way into the market and distorts the whole thing? I have been consistent in wanting govt out of the deal. You can either accept that or not

Have fun using services that others paid for...

 

[deleted480308]

Have fun using services that others paid for...

Repetition doesn’t increase validity

 

[FutureInternist]

Repetition doesn’t increase validity

True... just wanted to point out your hypocrisy in case you forgot.

 

[FutureInternist]

The GOP opposes universal healthcare because they are bought and paid for by big corporations, not because they care about some libertarian ideals.

True... Dems are not that much better as far as being bought and paid for... but they do tend to help the poorer people while they line their own pockets.

Republicans, just steal, and give more and more to the rich that dont need it.

Unfortunately it always will be the lesser of two evils.
The Dems are just way way less

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

True... just wanted to point out your hypocrisy in case you forgot.

Not really hypocrisy if there's no other option.

For instance, I'd love for social security to not be a thing. But, unless the government gives me back that part of all the FICA taxes I've paid I'll be taking it when the time comes.

 

[FutureInternist]

Not all med school loans are subsidized. None of mine were.

That aside, you often have no choice in the matter in using subsidized things. I can't drive on unsubsidized roads, they don't exist. You can't always buy food that didn't receive subsidies, vast majority of farms do.

Beyond that, it wouldn't surprise me if SB has paid enough into some of these things to pay for his share.

For example, prior to having children my school share of my state taxes is enough to pay for my kids' public schooling for 4 years each. That doesn't include taxes paid since they've been born nor what I will pay in the future. Assuming no change in per student spending or my tax rate, by the time they graduate high school I will have paid around 4k less than the total cost of their education K5-12. I would actually expect that to be much less as property values are increasing much faster than spending on education.

Pay for “his share”.... exactly!!!!
He is arguing for people to pay for all of their medical care.

If someone cannot pay for a vent, he is OK with unplugging them (in another thread).

He did have a choice as to not becoming a doctor if he really believed that much in not getting government involved.

If something that one can potentially do on their own (ie food) is OK to be subsidised, then I would think something as esoteric as medical care that can only be obtained through certain channels, should also be OK.

And just like you paid taxes towards schools that you (initially) had no kids to send to, then so did others with no or less kids paid for yours.
Sure, you may have paid enough for your kids ....but what if you had 1 more?
It shouldn’t change the fact that just like roads, food and education, medical care should be subsidised if not paid for by the gov.
Folks who have insurance seem to ignore that their care is also subsidised by all the people who don’t drive fast, go skiing, smoke, drink etc.

 

[FutureInternist]

B

Fair enough. I appreciate the consistency.

Truthfully that's how I approach @sb247 . We disagree way more often than not but he's very consistent which is a fairly rare quality these days.

Being consistent is not a sign of being correct... rather the ability to change your mind when given new info should be more appreciated (like I did with gun control, some aspects of immigration, and renal dosing of dopamine)

 

[FutureInternist]

Not really hypocrisy if there's no other option.

For instance, I'd love for social security to not be a thing. But, unless the government gives me back that part of all the FICA taxes I've paid I'll be taking it when the time comes.

So why try to deny others who are using the same logic/law etc to survive.
SB’s take on food banks is the same... ie go to private charities .

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

From my many interactions with him, SB's thing is always the same: government shouldn't be involved in X. He's basically describing how he thinks things ought to be. If things ever actually went that way, I feel quite confident that he would 100% live under that system the way he says.

The problem is, under our current system that's not always possible. So like literally everyone else everywhere else, he has to do as best he can. For example, it's possible to get student loans that aren't subsidized by the government.

Also, equating insurance with this discussion is dishonest. Dude has been consistent in being against government forced insurance. Private insurance is different as you sign up and pay into it voluntarily.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

B


Being consistent is not a sign of being correct... rather the ability to change your mind when given new info should be more appreciated (like I did with gun control, some aspects of immigration, and renal dosing of dopamine)

Except he's not wrong about this. It's his opinion on how things should work. You can't be wrong about that.

He's even accepted that some people would be harmed if his dreams came true and we went hard core libertarian.

 

[deleted480308]

Pay for “his share”.... exactly!!!!
He is arguing for people to pay for all of their medical care.

If someone cannot pay for a vent, he is OK with unplugging them (in another thread).

He did have a choice as to not becoming a doctor if he really believed that much in not getting government involved.

If something that one can potentially do on their own (ie food) is OK to be subsidised, then I would think something as esoteric as medical care that can only be obtained through certain channels, should also be OK.

And just like you paid taxes towards schools that you (initially) had no kids to send to, then so did others with no or less kids paid for yours.
Sure, you may have paid enough for your kids ....but what if you had 1 more?
It shouldn’t change the fact that just like roads, food and education, medical care should be subsidised if not paid for by the gov.
Folks who have insurance seem to ignore that their care is also subsidised by all the people who don’t drive fast, go skiing, smoke, drink etc.

there are a lot of straw men and misstatements there

I don’t want food or education subsidized, that makes my stance on healthcare consistent.

Voluntary insurance isn’t a subsidy, it’s a voluntary shared risk with each member paying an actuarial rate based on that risk. Govt has messed with that arrangement by altering risk/payment ratios and removing the voluntary conponent. In the jurisdictions I’m familiar with, local roads are primarily paid as a sort of user fee via gas tax and impact fees (I used to build them).

 

[deleted480308]

So why try to deny others who are using the same logic/law etc to survive.
SB’s take on food banks is the same... ie go to private charities .

private food banks are great, I suggest you join me in supporting them

Except he's not wrong about this. It's his opinion on how things should work. You can't be wrong about that.

He's even accepted that some people would be harmed if his dreams came true and we went hard core libertarian.

pretty much, but they would be harmed by fate/life/their own choices, the current system allows the govt to be arbiter of harm

 

[FutureInternist]

Except he's not wrong about this. It's his opinion on how things should work. You can't be wrong about that.

He's even accepted that some people would be harmed if his dreams came true and we went hard core libertarian.

People have “opinions” that the earth is flat.... opinions CAN be wrong.

 

[FutureInternist]

there are a lot of straw men and misstatements there

I don’t want food or education subsidized, that makes my stance on healthcare consistent.

Voluntary insurance isn’t a subsidy, it’s a voluntary shared risk with each member paying an actuarial rate based on that risk. Govt has messed with that arrangement by altering risk/payment ratios and removing the voluntary conponent. In the jurisdictions I’m familiar with, local roads are primarily paid as a sort of user fee via gas tax and impact fees (I used to build them).

And as mentioned before, you have NOT paid for the whole road, yet continue to use it.
You have NOT paid for a private tutor for each subject, rather you used a school that has shared costs with all other people in the area (usually homeowners from my understanding of how schools are funded).

You availed yourself of these and many many other pooled opportunities where you did not pay the full cost, yet you are willing to sentence people to die due to their inability to afford food or housing.

I am not going to change yours (or apparently VA’s mind), rather I like to point out an opposing view to try to limit the # of people who would subscribe to your ridiculous world view.

I do donate over and above my taxes to the general well being of those less fortunate than myself.
I can only affect so much change with my $, so the best bet is to get more people on board, to not only donate more (I usually use local mosque), but yes to get more people to pay taxes, since that is the best way to achieve large scale changes.

There are many many health crises that would have done a lot more damage if the federal gov hadn’t had a coordinated response (current idiot in chief notwithstanding), and the current hunger and soon to come homeless explosion is the exact reason why a broad, federal level response is needed, specially when private entities can and do discriminate against certain populations (although current admin is certainly headed that way too, but at least there is a chance of changing that)

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

People have “opinions” that the earth is flat.... opinions CAN be wrong.

That's not an opinion though. They believe that the Earth is flat. They believe an incorrect fact.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

And as mentioned before, you have NOT paid for the whole road, yet continue to use it.
You have NOT paid for a private tutor for each subject, rather you used a school that has shared costs with all other people in the area (usually homeowners from my understanding of how schools are funded).

You availed yourself of these and many many other pooled opportunities where you did not pay the full cost, yet you are willing to sentence people to die due to their inability to afford food or housing.

I am not going to change yours (or apparently VA’s mind), rather I like to point out an opposing view to try to limit the # of people who would subscribe to your ridiculous world view.

I do donate over and above my taxes to the general well being of those less fortunate than myself.
I can only affect so much change with my $, so the best bet is to get more people on board, to not only donate more (I usually use local mosque), but yes to get more people to pay taxes, since that is the best way to achieve large scale changes.

There are many many health crises that would have done a lot more damage if the federal gov hadn’t had a coordinated response (current idiot in chief notwithstanding), and the current hunger and soon to come homeless explosion is the exact reason why a broad, federal level response is needed, specially when private entities can and do discriminate against certain populations (although current admin is certainly headed that way too, but at least there is a chance of changing that)

Truthfully I suspect outside universal healthcare you and I probably agree more than SB and I do.

But I find myself defending him from bad arguments because I detest bad arguments.

There are lots of good arguments against his politics. You just haven't used them.

 

[deleted480308]

Truthfully I suspect outside universal healthcare you and I probably agree more than SB and I do.

But I find myself defending him from bad arguments because I detest bad arguments.

There are lots of good arguments against his politics. You just haven't used them.

I too at least appreciate a well structured argument when someone decides to make one

 

[deleted480308]

And as mentioned before, you have NOT paid for the whole road, yet continue to use it.
You have NOT paid for a private tutor for each subject, rather you used a school that has shared costs with all other people in the area (usually homeowners from my understanding of how schools are funded).

You availed yourself of these and many many other pooled opportunities where you did not pay the full cost, yet you are willing to sentence people to die due to their inability to afford food or housing.

I am not going to change yours (or apparently VA’s mind), rather I like to point out an opposing view to try to limit the # of people who would subscribe to your ridiculous world view.

I do donate over and above my taxes to the general well being of those less fortunate than myself.
I can only affect so much change with my $, so the best bet is to get more people on board, to not only donate more (I usually use local mosque), but yes to get more people to pay taxes, since that is the best way to achieve large scale changes.

There are many many health crises that would have done a lot more damage if the federal gov hadn’t had a coordinated response (current idiot in chief notwithstanding), and the current hunger and soon to come homeless explosion is the exact reason why a broad, federal level response is needed, specially when private entities can and do discriminate against certain populations (although current admin is certainly headed that way too, but at least there is a chance of changing that)

You really seem to miss the point intentionally, it might be more productive for others trying to discuss eventually if we just let our disagreement stand

 

[FutureInternist]

You really seem to miss the point intentionally, it might be more productive for others trying to discuss eventually if we just let our disagreement stand

Agree with 2nd half

 

[FutureInternist]

Truthfully I suspect outside universal healthcare you and I probably agree more than SB and I do.

But I find myself defending him from bad arguments because I detest bad arguments.

There are lots of good arguments against his politics. You just haven't used them.

I guess you will have to come up with better ones then...

The argument has always been the same... and always been correct.

He proposes stopping others from using the very same pooled resources that he used to advance in life.
Much like the folks who move into a neighbourhood and immediately start trying to limit who can move in so it doesn’t “drive down house value.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I guess you will have to come up with better ones then...

The argument has always been the same... and always been correct.

He proposes stopping others from using the very same pooled resources that he used to advance in life.
Much like the folks who move into a neighbourhood and immediately start trying to limit who can move in so it doesn’t “drive down house value.

I already have. SB and I have been arguing for a good 7 years now. The reasonably impressive thing as I've already mentioned is his complete acceptance of the likely consequences of his ideology.

For instance, he is 100% behind the deregulation of medical licensing. There's no way this wouldn't result in lower salaries for pretty much every MD in the country. Doesn't matter.

The other interesting thing is that many people assume they know how some aspects of what he believes would go despite pretty good evidence to the contrary. The complete lack of understanding of free market medicine being the prime one.

I also suspect that you don't really understand his beliefs all that well. He's not against all pooled resources. As best I can tell, he wants as few as possible to be overseen by the government with the ones that are being paid for proportional relative to use. Roads are the prime example. In many (most?) Places, roads are paid for by a gas tax (the more you drive on roads, the more gas you need, and the more you pay). I would suspect, and he can weigh in on this, the he would support toll roads for the same reason.

 

[deleted480308]

I already have. SB and I have been arguing for a good 7 years now. The reasonably impressive thing as I've already mentioned is his complete acceptance of the likely consequences of his ideology.

For instance, he is 100% behind the deregulation of medical licensing. There's no way this wouldn't result in lower salaries for pretty much every MD in the country. Doesn't matter.

The other interesting thing is that many people assume they know how some aspects of what he believes would go despite pretty good evidence to the contrary. The complete lack of understanding of free market medicine being the prime one.

I also suspect that you don't really understand his beliefs all that well. He's not against all pooled resources. As best I can tell, he wants as few as possible to be overseen by the government with the ones that are being paid for proportional relative to use. Roads are the prime example. In many (most?) Places, roads are paid for by a gas tax (the more you drive on roads, the more gas you need, and the more you pay). I would suspect, and he can weigh in on this, the he would support toll roads for the same reason.

That’s all pretty much on point

 

[FutureInternist]

I already have. SB and I have been arguing for a good 7 years now. The reasonably impressive thing as I've already mentioned is his complete acceptance of the likely consequences of his ideology.

For instance, he is 100% behind the deregulation of medical licensing. There's no way this wouldn't result in lower salaries for pretty much every MD in the country. Doesn't matter.

The other interesting thing is that many people assume they know how some aspects of what he believes would go despite pretty good evidence to the contrary. The complete lack of understanding of free market medicine being the prime one.

I also suspect that you don't really understand his beliefs all that well. He's not against all pooled resources. As best I can tell, he wants as few as possible to be overseen by the government with the ones that are being paid for proportional relative to use. Roads are the prime example. In many (most?) Places, roads are paid for by a gas tax (the more you drive on roads, the more gas you need, and the more you pay). I would suspect, and he can weigh in on this, the he would support toll roads for the same reason.

Sorry... I misread your comment as you not agreeing with him, and hence asked you to present a better argument.

Being completely accepting of the consequences of your ideology, does not in any way make it more credible.

Deregulation of medical licensing means anyone can hang up a shingle, call themselves a doc and kill people.
Some may be OK with that idea... I call it idiotic. (Can it be less onerous.. yes)

Private companies being allowed to discriminate against whomever (whoever?) they choose, leads to denied services, upheaval of lives etc.
He is OK with that since “the free market will solve it”, but thats a bunch of BS, since if a company in a whole city, county, state decided to disallow black people, or gays, or Muslims, there needs to be someone higher up the food chain to set those companies straight.
(Would he be OK if a the state in which he has lived for X years, all of a sudden decided they would not hire males anymore?... He will say Yes, but I am confident that he would complain about it and not give up w/o a fight)

Regulation by the government is what keeps companies slightly more honest, cos w/o that, the bottom line really becomes all that matters (or matters more), and there is nothing stopping a company from making an inferior product since they have calculated how many people it will kill (ford ignition switches), and how much $ they will have to pay out vs the loss of stock price with a recall.

His views place an extreme burden on those who cannot afford the bear necessities of life (Jungle book was great !), and while its all well and good to claim these things as your beliefs, I highly suspect that (much like current Republicans that abhor Socialism, yet took the government’s handouts), if he or his family were in a situation where they would die if they couldnt pay for something, his beliefs will change too.

Maybe an experiment where one of kids gets shot by mistake (or even on purpose), not lethal, just “Trauma ICU worthy”, and we ask him to pay up front for all the costs associated with keeping kid alive?
I say if he’s OK with letting other kids starve, I am OK with getting his shot to show hypocrisy.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Sorry... I misread your comment as you not agreeing with him, and hence asked you to present a better argument.

Being completely accepting of the consequences of your ideology, does not in any way make it more credible.

Deregulation of medical licensing means anyone can hang up a shingle, call themselves a doc and kill people.
Some may be OK with that idea... I call it idiotic. (Can it be less onerous.. yes)

Private companies being allowed to discriminate against whomever (whoever?) they choose, leads to denied services, upheaval of lives etc.
He is OK with that since “the free market will solve it”, but thats a bunch of BS, since if a company in a whole city, county, state decided to disallow black people, or gays, or Muslims, there needs to be someone higher up the food chain to set those companies straight.
(Would he be OK if a the state in which he has lived for X years, all of a sudden decided they would not hire males anymore?... He will say Yes, but I am confident that he would complain about it and not give up w/o a fight)

Regulation by the government is what keeps companies slightly more honest, cos w/o that, the bottom line really becomes all that matters (or matters more), and there is nothing stopping a company from making an inferior product since they have calculated how many people it will kill (ford ignition switches), and how much $ they will have to pay out vs the loss of stock price with a recall.

His views place an extreme burden on those who cannot afford the bear necessities of life (Jungle book was great !), and while its all well and good to claim these things as your beliefs, I highly suspect that (much like current Republicans that abhor Socialism, yet took the government’s handouts), if he or his family were in a situation where they would die if they couldnt pay for something, his beliefs will change too.

Maybe an experiment where one of kids gets shot by mistake (or even on purpose), not lethal, just “Trauma ICU worthy”, and we ask him to pay up front for all the costs associated with keeping kid alive?
I say if he’s OK with letting other kids starve, I am OK with getting his shot to show hypocrisy.

No you got that right, I don't agree with the majority of what he believes. I'm just not rehashing the last 7 years of arguments. You're welcome to search our respective post histories. Trust me, there's a lot of it.

That aside, this post is exactly what I was hoping for. This is how you argue against hard core libertarians. Its also why, as I've said, I do have respect for SB because all of these points have been brought up before and his answers are the same and consistent.

Companies shouldn't discriminate, but they should be allowed to. He's openly said that he would not patronize establishments that do discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual preference. I believe him.

Yes, lack of regulation into providing medical services probably would result in people being harmed. You would also likely get more people looking more carefully into who they choose for care. When I had my DPC practice, almost every patient made sure I was board certified. I have never been asked that in insurance practice. You would of course get people who go to quacks, but we have that now (DCs, NDs).

As for medical care, I have yet to find a hospital that wouldn't let you do a payment plan if you ask for one. If cost was an issue, I feel pretty safe saying that's what he would do. I've had to do it before - genetic testing is very pricey on a resident's salary and not covered by insurance in most situations.

His views absolutely put a lot on the less fortunate. Its one of the reasons I disagree with him frequently. Everyone is aware of this but I doubt he'd change his tune even if he were put into that situation.

 

[FutureInternist]

No you got that right, I don't agree with the majority of what he believes. I'm just not rehashing the last 7 years of arguments. You're welcome to search our respective post histories. Trust me, there's a lot of it.

That aside, this post is exactly what I was hoping for. This is how you argue against hard core libertarians. Its also why, as I've said, I do have respect for SB because all of these points have been brought up before and his answers are the same and consistent.

Companies shouldn't discriminate, but they should be allowed to. He's openly said that he would not patronize establishments that do discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual preference. I believe him.

Yes, lack of regulation into providing medical services probably would result in people being harmed. You would also likely get more people looking more carefully into who they choose for care. When I had my DPC practice, almost every patient made sure I was board certified. I have never been asked that in insurance practice. You would of course get people who go to quacks, but we have that now (DCs, NDs).

As for medical care, I have yet to find a hospital that wouldn't let you do a payment plan if you ask for one. If cost was an issue, I feel pretty safe saying that's what he would do. I've had to do it before - genetic testing is very pricey on a resident's salary and not covered by insurance in most situations.

His views absolutely put a lot on the less fortunate. Its one of the reasons I disagree with him frequently. Everyone is aware of this but I doubt he'd change his tune even if he were put into that situation.

The issue is not whether he would go to those places, the issue is what he would do if he was told he could not go and there were no other options.

There is no way one person can research all the things that they need to use, so there has to be a standard that one can be assured of when buying something.
Exit signs in hallways, not putting harmful chemicals next to food, having a car that doesn’t have its tires or engine fall out, not allowing discrimination against females, gays, etc... ALL of those (and many many many more) REQUIRED the government to move in since the free market didn’t solve it.

Payment plans is not the issue...the Q is what would he do if he cannot pay?
If he is OK with letting hid kid die, then that level of idiocy is (usually) not worth the time to try and fix, except, I want to limit the number of people who buy into that BS.

 

[deleted480308]

The issue is not whether he would go to those places, the issue is what he would do if he was told he could not go and there were no other options.

There is no way one person can research all the things that they need to use, so there has to be a standard that one can be assured of when buying something.
Exit signs in hallways, not putting harmful chemicals next to food, having a car that doesn’t have its tires or engine fall out, not allowing discrimination against females, gays, etc... ALL of those (and many many many more) REQUIRED the government to move in since the free market didn’t solve it.

Payment plans is not the issue...the Q is what would he do if he cannot pay?
If he is OK with letting hid kid die, then that level of idiocy is (usually) not worth the time to try and fix, except, I want to limit the number of people who buy into that BS.

Sorry missed your reply. We all die. And no, I don’t think anyone gets to demand services/money from their neighbors in hopes of delaying that fact

 

[Splenda88]

Roger Stone Calls For Trump To 'Declare Martial Law' To Seize Power If He Loses

Trump's ally says the president can bust Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, the "Clintons" and others who oppose him.

www.yahoo.com

Lol

 

[Gyuji]

Neoliberals, libertarians, right-wing/conservative economists don't have any solutions, answers, response to this pandemic. It's already shown how right-wing and conservative our government is during this pandemic. Still not offering free health service to its citizens, or other reliefs. Yet we have an election coming with the opposing candidate is against M4A and just offering his proposal - bringing back the individual-mandate. Basically, Bidencare = Obamacare. As well, teasing the public with the "public option" proposal which we know it's not going to get pass like the first attempt which it was killed on purpose.

 

[deleted480308]

Neoliberals, libertarians, right-wing/conservative economists don't have any solutions, answers, response to this pandemic. It's already shown how right-wing and conservative our government is during this pandemic. Still not offering free health service to its citizens, or other reliefs. Yet we have an election coming with the opposing candidate is against M4A and just offering his proposal - bringing back the individual-mandate. Basically, Bidencare = Obamacare. As well, teasing the public with the "public option" proposal which we know it's not going to get pass like the first attempt which it was killed on purpose.

It’s more accurate that you just don’t like the answers

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Sorry missed your reply. We all die. And no, I don’t think anyone gets to demand services/money from their neighbors in hopes of delaying that fact

Do you have kids, and have you ever been homeless or otherwise destitute? I'm just asking because I have been and I have kids, and all of my political beliefs aside, I could not imagine just being okay with my kid dying of sepsis because I absolutely couldn't afford an appendectomy (and someone who is destitute won't be able to use a payment plan--they're often making the choice whether to feed themselves or their kids).

 

[deleted480308]

Do you have kids, and have you ever been homeless or otherwise destitute? I'm just asking because I have been and I have kids, and all of my political beliefs aside, I could not imagine just being okay with my kid dying of sepsis because I absolutely couldn't afford an appendectomy (and someone who is destitute won't be able to use a payment plan--they're often making the choice whether to feed themselves or their kids).

Yes to kids, lived on a few dollars a day for food before (literally), I get it...life can be hard. But the difficulty of my life doesn’t mean people owe me things

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yes to kids, lived on a few dollars a day for food before (literally), I get it...life can be hard. But the difficulty of my life doesn’t mean people owe me things

So you're telling me that you would rather just watch your kid die at home from something treatable than have the government/taxpayers pay for it?

 

[deleted480308]

So you're telling me that you would rather just watch your kid die at home from something treatable than have the government/taxpayers pay for it?

As the govt insists on stealing my money, right now I would take it back in the form of taking the treatment. But I would absolutely shut down both ends of that system, there should be no enforced system of making one person buy stuff for other people. My neighbors don’t have an obligation to me and govt shouldn’t seek to create one

those situations are for charity

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

As the govt insists on stealing my money, right now I would take it back in the form of taking the treatment. But I would absolutely shut down both ends of that system, there should be no enforced system of making one person buy stuff for other people. My neighbors don’t have an obligation to me and govt shouldn’t seek to create one

those situations are for charity

I guess I'm just trying to understand your position. In your ideal world, poor families who can't afford treatment should have to just let nature take its course? I'm not trying to ask a loaded question, just really wondering. So how would it work? You'd bring your kid to the emergency room, and they'd ask how you're going to pay, and if you can't they'd just tell you to leave and you get to go home and experience life in the 16th century while your neighbor is getting 21st century care?

 

[FutureInternist]

I guess I'm just trying to understand your position. In your ideal world, poor families who can't afford treatment should have to just let nature take its course? I'm not trying to ask a loaded question, just really wondering. So how would it work? You'd bring your kid to the emergency room, and they'd ask how you're going to pay, and if you can't they'd just tell you to leave and you get to go home and experience life in the 16th century while your neighbor is getting 21st century care?

Its a scenario that even it befalls him, there will not be any way to “check” if he stuck to his ridiculous beliefs or not, so its easy to espouse them.

Meanwhile, people like him keep using gov provided services and it is only when they get to a service that they can do without or have an alternative way of getting it, that it becomes “Socialism”

 

[Splenda88]

For Trump, It's Not the United States, It's Red and Blue States

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump argued this week that the death toll from the coronavirus was actually not so bad. All you had to do was not count states that voted for Democrats."If you take the blue states out," he said, "we're at a level that I don't think anybody in the

news.yahoo.com

I have not followed the news for a while... If that is true, that is abominable. No human being should feel or think that way.

I don't want to vote, but Trump is forcing my hands here...

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

For Trump, It's Not the United States, It's Red and Blue States

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump argued this week that the death toll from the coronavirus was actually not so bad. All you had to do was not count states that voted for Democrats."If you take the blue states out," he said, "we're at a level that I don't think anybody in the

news.yahoo.com

I have not followed the news for a while... If that is true, that is abominable. No human being should feel or think that way.

I don't want to vote, but Trump is forcing my hands here...

Don’t kid yourself into thinking any of those slimeballs think any different. He’s just dumb enough to say it aloud.

 

[Splenda88]

Don’t kid yourself into thinking any of those slimeballs think any different. He’s just dumb enough to say it aloud.

So that is true... Well, maybe I have not been around enough slimeballs.

I don't think Romney. McCain, the Bushes would think that way to be honest...

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

So that is true... Well, maybe I have not been around enough slimeballs.

Given what I've seen, I'm convinced it's almost impossible to get to that level without being an underhanded slimeball.

 

[Splenda88]

Given what I've seen, I'm convinced it's almost impossible to get to that level without being an underhanded slimeball.

Yeah, but saying that on national TV as a US president put that at another level... Where are his advisors? People are telling me no one person told Trump that does not look or sound good

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Yeah, but saying that on national TV as a US president put that at another level... Where are his advisors? People are telling me no one person told Trump that does not look or sound good

I’m sure they did. He doesn’t seem like the kind of person who listens to his PR advisors, much like Biden.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

So that is true... Well, maybe I have not been around enough slimeballs.

I don't think Romney. McCain, the Bushes would think that way to be honest...

Also I’m sure what he actually meant was that Democrat-led states have done a terrible job, not that it doesn’t matter if you died if you’re from a blue state. He’s been talking about how the dems have been messing everything up in their states for a while now.

 

[Splenda88]

Also I’m sure what he actually meant was that Democrat-led states have done a terrible job, not that it doesn’t matter if you died if you’re from a blue state. He’s been talking about how the dems have been messing everything up in their states for a while now.

What does Covid-19 have to do with democrat-led state? I am in reliable republican state right now and Covid-19 is going rampant here...

Maybe that what he meant, but it came out like: 'If you take out the people who died in blue states, US (or I) have done a pretty good job.'

Also, it's not like Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky and the everall south are shining states on a hill... It does not make sense

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What does Covid-19 have to do with democrat-led state? I am in reliable republican state right now and Covid-19 is going rampant here...

Maybe that what he meant, but it came out like: 'If you take out the people who died in blue states, US (or I) have done a pretty good job.'

Also, it's not like Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky and the everall south are shining states on a hill... It does not make sense

I mean that’s how the news is spinning and how people who don’t like him are reading into it. If it had not been about covid and instead was about like unemployment, and he said, “if you take out the blue states, our unemployment rates are actually very low,” then it is pretty obvious that he would mean that not counting those states we’re doing a good job—i.e., the democrats are the ones messing it up.

And since by and large the states are running their own response to the pandemic wrt restrictions and stuff, I’d say you could make it political if you wanted to. But all you have to do is look at Florida to show it isn’t just Democrat-led states messing it up.

 

[Splenda88]

I mean that’s how the news is spinning and how people who don’t like him are reading into it. If it had not been about covid and instead was about like unemployment, and he said, “if you take out the blue states, our unemployment rates are actually very low,” then it is pretty obvious that he would mean that not counting those states we’re doing a good job—i.e., the democrats are the ones messing it up.

And since by and large the states are running their own response to the pandemic wrt restrictions and stuff, I’d say you could make it political if you wanted to. But all you have to do is look at Florida to show it isn’t just Democrat-led states messing it up.

That's why I don't watch any news outlet. It's all spin and BS!

I just ran across that headline in Yahoo and I said: He can't possibly say that.

 

[deleted480308]

I guess I'm just trying to understand your position. In your ideal world, poor families who can't afford treatment should have to just let nature take its course? I'm not trying to ask a loaded question, just really wondering. So how would it work? You'd bring your kid to the emergency room, and they'd ask how you're going to pay, and if you can't they'd just tell you to leave and you get to go home and experience life in the 16th century while your neighbor is getting 21st century care?

They would certainly be legal to do so, just like a grocery store is legal to do so. They could/would have charity hospitals or charity funds within hospitals.