UnitedHealthcare: Jackal Barkings vs. Reality

@spruce112358 said
Europe caps the price of drugs that national health will pay for. And everyone in Europe has the national health. So drugs cost what Europe decides they will cost - usually around 30% of what they cost in the US. This is for the SAME, IDENTICAL drug. 😆

But do companies refuse to sell drugs in Europe? Of course not! The alternative is to earn nothing in a huge market ...[text shortened]... n cost of production. So of course they sell in Europe. They just don't make as much money there. 😆

Europe? No, this is the USA (capitalist, freedom, independence from govt, such as that). If you are suggesting changing our system, it can hardly mirror that of those European societies.

Your 'capping' comment gives me the willies. I produce products. Could this govt capping expand into capping my products?

@spruce112358 said
Yep. Elections. A capitalist says, "How many votes can I buy?" But elections are not to be bought and sold. GOVERNMENT is not a business. Government protects all our rights equally and does NOT offer better "rights protection" to those who pay more money.

That's why this trend of, "we need businessmen to run the country" is wrong-headed. CEOs may be the LEAST qualifie ...[text shortened]...
Public land. The national parks and highways and fisheries and forests are not a for-profit scheme.

Fire departments also should not be run on subscriptions. The general weal requires that every building on fire should be quenched, regardless whether the owner is in arrears.

@AverageJoe1 said
Europe? No, this is the USA (capitalist, freedom, independence from govt, such as that). If you are suggesting changing our system, it can hardly mirror that of those European societies.

Your 'capping' comment gives me the willies. I produce products. Could this govt capping expand into capping my products?

US healthcare is not independent from government - not at ALL. 😆

You shouldn't be afraid of 'capping.' Prices of all public utilities are capped. 😆

@moonbus said
Fire departments also should not be run on subscriptions. The general weal requires that every building on fire should be quenched, regardless whether the owner is in arrears.

The General Weal also. "Requires that every person needing medical care should be tended to, regardless whether the person is paying for it."
So, your point.

@moonbus said
Fire departments also should not be run on subscriptions. The general weal requires that every building on fire should be quenched, regardless whether the owner is in arrears.

Don't forget police and ambulance also.

@spruce112358 said
US healthcare is not independent from government - not at ALL. 😆

You shouldn't be afraid of 'capping.' Prices of all public utilities are capped. 😆

What are you saying, you are writing like a liberal.
You compare private for-profit businesses/corporations with Public Utilities? And, you suggest that private corps have their products capped!?!?? And you think we, as stockholders of the corporations, in it for the money, should not be afraid.
None of you have made a lick of sense since November 5. Pitiful. Make it easy on yourselves and get on the Train 47!

Help Me Rhonda

@KingDavid403 said
Don't forget police and ambulance also.

Hey KING! I'm having a light moment. Let's say I live in a small community, closest municipal fire station is 28 miles away. I decide to buy a truck with a water tank on it, for delivering water, fighting fires. I go through a neighborhood and sell 'insurance' to the homeowners, to come a'runin and put out a fire if the home is on fire. There are 45 houses, 40 of them pay me $300 annually for this coverage. A nice little enterprise for me.
One of the houses that did NOT pay for this insurance ( only 4 blocks from me and my truck) catches fire, the owner knows of me and calls me for help, obviously to put out the fire.
Am I legally responsible to put out the fire, or can I just watch it burn?

@AverageJoe1 said
Hey KING! I'm having a light moment. Let's say I live in a small community, closest municipal fire station is 28 miles away. I decide to buy a truck with a water tank on it, for delivering water, fighting fires. I go through a neighborhood and sell 'insurance' to the homeowners, to come a'runin and put out a fire if the home is on fire. There are 45 houses, 40 of ...[text shortened]... to put out the fire.
Am I legally responsible to put out the fire, or can I just watch it burn?

You seem to think we never tried that. 😆

But keep thinking! You may eventually get to the 20th century! 😆

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/early-19-century-firefighters-fought-fires-each-other-180960391/

@AverageJoe1 said
Hey KING! I'm having a light moment. Let's say I live in a small community, closest municipal fire station is 28 miles away. I decide to buy a truck with a water tank on it, for delivering water, fighting fires. I go through a neighborhood and sell 'insurance' to the homeowners, to come a'runin and put out a fire if the home is on fire. There are 45 houses, 40 of ...[text shortened]... to put out the fire.
Am I legally responsible to put out the fire, or can I just watch it burn?

Am I legally responsible to put out the fire, or can I just watch it burn?

Do YOU think you are responsible to help if you can in your strange hypothetical here? Would you help if you could?

@KingDavid403 said
Am I legally responsible to put out the fire, or can I just watch it burn?

Do YOU think you are responsible to help if you can in your strange hypothetical here? Would you help if you could?

Yes, one should help the guy whose house is burning down. That out of the way, is he legally obligated to put out the fire? No answer needed, I have accomplished my goal.
I guess you have figured out by now that the purpose of my question was not about legality or fires at all...............................................
It is to once more expose how liberals cannot answer a straight question.

There is something about the makeup of libs which cause them to go automatically into a defensive or offensive (take your pick) mode, when it is totally uncalled for, when a simple yes or no is adequate. You had all the facts to arrive at an answer,,,,,,,yet, you do not. Answer, that is.
You would be the best person to explain this anomaly to us. You can hardly deny that it exists, give the very case at hand.



PS: You even go so far as to say my quite simple hypothetical is strange, when there is nothing strange about it. There are many such enterprises in rural communities.

@spruce112358 said
You seem to think we never tried that. 😆

But keep thinking! You may eventually get to the 20th century! 😆

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/early-19-century-firefighters-fought-fires-each-other-180960391/

And here you have Lib Spruce going Really! off the wall. He may be worse than you. My point proven even deeper, and I did not even have to move!!!

@AverageJoe1 said
Yes, one should help the guy whose house is burning down. That out of the way, is he legally obligated to put out the fire? No answer needed, I have accomplished my goal.
I guess you have figured out by now that the purpose of my question was not about legality or fires at all...............................................
It is to once more expose how liberal ...[text shortened]... ange, when there is nothing strange about it. There are many such enterprises in rural communities.

Yes, one should help the guy whose house is burning down.
So why are you asking then? Are you okay today?

It is to once more expose how liberals cannot answer a straight question.
Name the liberals you have exposed?

@spruce112358 said
You seem to think we never tried that. 😆

But keep thinking! You may eventually get to the 20th century! 😆

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/early-19-century-firefighters-fought-fires-each-other-180960391/

Contrare', I even said that 'there are many such enterprises in rural communities".

Let's see what the KING comes back with. Easy pickins! I knew that he would not answer it. Maybe you can tell us....what is wrong with libs, that they cannot answer questions!

Ask me a question.

@KingDavid403 said
Yes, one should help the guy whose house is burning down.
So why are you asking then? Are you okay today?

It is to once more expose how liberals cannot answer a straight question.
Name the liberals you have exposed?

See, here you go again. Why don't you say, yeah, Joe, you have a point.
Why, oh why, would I name people, when it is all of you. Did you see what Spruce just wrote? Isn't that what y'all call moving the goal posts?

And wy am i askiing, you ask? I told you why, you silly goose. I told you the purpose of the post. Whew.

@AverageJoe1 said
See, here you go again. Why don't you say, yeah, Joe, you have a point.
Why, oh why, would I name people, when it is all of you. Did you see what Spruce just wrote? Isn't that what y'all call moving the goal posts?

And wy am i askiing, you ask? I told you why, you silly goose. I told you the purpose of the post. Whew.

See, here you go again. Why don't you say, yeah, Joe, you have a point.
You don't have a point. Because your correct answer is the ONLY point.
Why would you argue against what you said you would do? lol... Whew.... Are you really that stupid? 🙄 Wait; don't answer that. I already know Mrs. pro-life. Please forgive me ladies.