Healthcare Plans Explained

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, if it were not for those evil conservatives our we would have our medical utopia. 😠

You know, the facts probably do support this.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
So you happily sit hours with chain smokers and notice no ill effects?
Or
You run down cyclists and ignore their screams?

I don't allow smoking in my house, some people do, if you don't like the way I run my house or the way smokers run theirs PO.

Running down cyclists represents a threat to others.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Too much wealth is frozen up in private hands. Thus America in total can afford health care but most Americans cannot.

In words you might like better, the rich can afford all of our health care, and they have no right to be that rich at the poor's expense. See the writings of James Madison.

Common misconception, you should be over it by now. Wealthy people tend not to sit on their money it's usually tied up in investments, do you know what investments are. It's making money work.

Originally posted by whodey
Just like the States. For example, conservative states like Texas had a surpluss but liberal states like New York and California are in dire straights. Of course, when we all get thrown in the mix together we have to pay for other peoples misdeeds. Sounds fair, eh? Its what makes socialism so great!! In fact, I have to pay for other peoples misdeeds regarding smoking in socialized medicine. Why should I have to?

That was part of the deal Texas accepted when it asked to be annexed to the USA in 1837. Perhaps Texas was afraid of Mexico and wanted American protection.

Then again Texas had just defeated Mexico so maybe not.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Nice point there TerrierJack, it's the other insidious side of nationalised health care, the guvamints justifications for ever greater claims on your life grow. People who enjoy the occasional burger will be punished for those that abuse burger consumption (some burgers actually make very healthy meals). Smokers that live long productive lives are punished ...[text shortened]... rough 'sin' taxes.

The innocent are made guilty. The careful must pay for the careless.

The children of the rich must have their publicly funded security guards.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You only benefit in so much as you have something of benefit to trade, if someone doesn't want to be productive leave them to it, mind your own business, you have some kind of compulsive disorder about being concerned with every other persons life.

Yeah, leave those schizophrenics alone to not be productive of their own free will, dammit!

Well, the poor ones anyway. The rich ones have family wealth to support them - family wealth they never earned, but somehow that doesn't matter. All I know is that they are better than the poor ones who deserve to suffer for being lazy!

But not the schizophrenics I know and care about. Those ones are victims whose family will take care of them, and this is how it should be. If Daddy found a way to get rich and never got caught when he was immorally doing so, then his children somehow are more virtuous and deserve more unearned treatment than those with the same illness but whose parents didn't strike it rich (rightfully or not).

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're getting confused again, WajomaWorld is not anarchy, Somalia is.

In Wajomaworld, the rich have police protection from the starving masses. That's civilization, where the peasants can't bother the elites at public expense. Such a superior system.

If only those damn American colonists had understood that a few hundred years ago.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're doubly confused, your only concern should be that they pay for the services they use, not how productive they are compared to you.

Or how much they inherited. It's the duty of society to provide guards for that inheritance right?

Originally posted by Wajoma
There might be a couple of oddballs collect things for the sake of collecting, generally these take the form of barbie doll collections, or beer can collections. People holding other resources can usually be persuaded to part with them for the right price.

People holding resources can be persuaded to part with resources if you offer to give them enough resources? 🙄

Originally posted by Wajoma
Take it easy on the edit button.

I don't want the cops helping a homeless person smash my window to gain access my house. I expect them to stop that type of behaviour.

Sorry about the edit.

Yes, I know you expect public guardians to violently stop people from using items you feel only you should use, whether you or they need them or not.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't allow smoking in my house, some people do, if you don't like the way I run my house or the way smokers run theirs PO.

Running down cyclists represents a threat to others.

So why not allow the smoking if it is no threat?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Common misconception, you should be over it by now. Wealthy people tend not to sit on their money it's usually tied up in investments, do you know what investments are. It's making money work.

Investments in reality are generally when rich people trade resources with other rich people. It takes money to make money...

So if you don't have any, too bad for you!

Originally posted by TerrierJack
So why not allow the smoking if it is no threat?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Let em smoke, let em drink and do drugs, let em ride their bicycles without helmets, just don't expect me to pay for it when it goes wrong.

Originally posted by Wajoma
That's exactly what I'm saying. Let em smoke, let em drink and do drugs, let em ride their bicycles without helmets, just don't expect me to pay for it when it goes wrong.

And don't expect "society" to provide you with armed guards.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
And don't expect "society" to provide you with armed guards.

You still don't see the difference? Don't you make claims to be in the teaching profession?

All those things I mentioned are what people do to themselves.