Originally posted by FreakyKBH Oh.
You mean it's not fair?
There are two players in the NBA, both shorter than most of the women I ever dated, literally one inch shorter than the average male height in America.
And yet despite being in a sport which is dominated by men who, on average, are eleven inches taller than either of them, they both have found success.
Life, like the NBA ...[text shortened]... less the level of their own commitment thereof.
You won't agree, I am sure, but such is life.
I did not say health care was a right.
In fifty words or less answer this question: It is morally just that one eight year old with leukemia shouldn't get treatment because their parents only have x income while eight year old B should get treatment because their parents have x+ income because ...............................
An answer "such is life" is plainly insufficient. Life in this case is what the People make it. Life in most of the "advanced" world says both eight year olds get treatment.
Originally posted by no1marauder I did not say health care was a right.
In fifty words or less answer this question: It is morally just that one eight year old with leukemia shouldn't get treatment because their parents only have x income while eight year old B should get treatment because their parents have x+ income because ...............................
An answer "such is lif ...[text shortened]... he People make it. Life in most of the "advanced" world says both eight year olds get treatment.
Again: what is making the care unaffordable (which, if not repealed, will be the first third of the ACA), if not the out-of-whack medical/insurance industry?
They've poisoned the fields and we're expected to pay for the crap crops?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Again: what is making the care unaffordable (which, if not repealed, will be the first third of the ACA), if not the out-of-whack medical/insurance industry?
They've poisoned the fields and we're expected to pay for the crap crops?
That's less than fifty words but not an answer to the question I asked.
Originally posted by no1marauder That's less than fifty words but not an answer to the question I asked.
More pointedly: why provide health care through the current system since the system is completely broken, corrupt?
Fix the system.
If that doesn't solve the problem, no amount of money we throw at it will.
Don't subsidize sub-par products and services.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH More pointedly: why provide health care through the current system since the system is completely broken, corrupt?
Fix the system.
If that doesn't solve the problem, no amount of money we throw at it will.
Don't subsidize sub-par products and services.
So once the system is "fixed", would you support providing treatment to said patient regardless of the financial situation of the kid's family?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra So once the system is "fixed", would you support providing treatment to said patient regardless of the financial situation of the kid's family?
Given Freaky's umm "unorthodox" views, it is possible his criticism of the "system" as regards present day health care is based on the failure of barbers to use sufficient amounts of leeches for bloodletting and/or the relative scarcity of trepanning in US hospitals.
Originally posted by no1marauder Given Freaky's umm "unorthodox" views, it is possible his criticism of the "system" as regards present day health care is based on the failure of barbers to use sufficient amounts of leeches for bloodletting and/or the relative scarcity of trepanning in US hospitals.
Originally posted by no1marauder Given Freaky's umm "unorthodox" views, it is possible his criticism of the "system" as regards present day health care is based on the failure of barbers to use sufficient amounts of leeches for bloodletting and/or the relative scarcity of trepanning in US hospitals.
I guess it would save a lot of money (in terms of cost of treatment) if vaccines were abolished and medicine replaced by homeopathy.