Universal Health Care

nick1977nick1977 Posts: 327
edited February 2007 in A Moving Train
I had a client come into my office today. It is a couple, in their 50's. The man is a self employed truck driver, making very little money (and even less since he started going through cancer treatments). The woman makes $125 per week as a receptionist. They own a small house, and he inherited 60 acres of land from his father. They cannot afford health insurance, even though both are good, hard working people. The man has been diagnosed with colon cancer, and need extensive treatment that he cannot pay for.

They told me that the land is the only thing they have, and were planning on living on it when they retire. Now they are afraid that they must sell it to pay for his cancer treatment.

He can only qualify for Medicaid assistance after selling the land and using the proceeds to pay for his treatment.

This is wrong. Cancer can hit any one of us. It is not right for some people to have to use all of their assets to pay for treatment because they do not have the money to pay for health insurance. If I got cancer, I could keep my life savings because my health insurance would pay for my treatments.

This is just wrong. I don't know what the solution is, but there is a double standard.....we make the lower income bracket who cannot afford health insurance sell all they have to pay for their health care for life threatning problems, while middle inocme and up, who are covered by health insurance, can keep their life savings because their insurance will pay for their care.

This is not right. I believe everyone should have health coverage for catestrophic life threatning injuries (I'm not talking about routine medical procedures). Cancer can hit any one of us at any time. I think society has a duty to take care of those people. If one cannot afford health insurance, the government should pick up the tab.

I don't know what the solution is, but I just recognize that this is unjust, and is not right in a society where we have abundant resources.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    It's an absolute travesty.

    Even health insurance is no guarantee, because it follows your job. My treatments last year cost over $250,000, and I used up my disability leave and all my sick and vacation time, and I still wasn't able to work every day. I'm lucky enough to work for decent people, that's why I'm still here, but they would have been entirely within their legal rights to fire me ... I was unable to do the job for the required number of days. If they had, my income would have gone to $0, and my health insurance costs would have tripled. We could have afforded that, at least for a while, on my husband's income, but there are millions of people who couldn't, or who don't have a spouse at all.

    People think that they're ok because they're insured, but it's frighteningly easy to fall between the cracks even if you think you're covered. I know people that it's happened to.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • nah, we'd rather build a 40,000 dollar bomb to blow up something and then probably have an american company rebuild it,...

    we'd rather lose 2.3 trillion dollars in defense spending, which was announced the day before 9/11.

    and i think i had a good night bartending when i break 150,...
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    nick1977 wrote:
    I had a client come into my office today. It is a couple, in their 50's. The man is a self employed truck driver, making very little money (and even less since he started going through cancer treatments). The woman makes $125 per week as a receptionist. They own a small house, and he inherited 60 acres of land from his father. They cannot afford health insurance, even though both are good, hard working people. The man has been diagnosed with colon cancer, and need extensive treatment that he cannot pay for.

    They told me that the land is the only thing they have, and were planning on living on it when they retire. Now they are afraid that they must sell it to pay for his cancer treatment.

    He can only qualify for Medicaid assistance after selling the land and using the proceeds to pay for his treatment.

    This is wrong. Cancer can hit any one of us. It is not right for some people to have to use all of their assets to pay for treatment because they do not have the money to pay for health insurance. If I got cancer, I could keep my life savings because my health insurance would pay for my treatments.

    This is just wrong. I don't know what the solution is, but there is a double standard.....we make the lower income bracket who cannot afford health insurance sell all they have to pay for their health care for life threatning problems, while middle inocme and up, who are covered by health insurance, can keep their life savings because their insurance will pay for their care.

    This is not right. I believe everyone should have health coverage for catestrophic life threatning injuries (I'm not talking about routine medical procedures). Cancer can hit any one of us at any time. I think society has a duty to take care of those people. If one cannot afford health insurance, the government should pick up the tab.

    I don't know what the solution is, but I just recognize that this is unjust, and is not right in a society where we have abundant resources.

    suggest he call the american cancer society and request help. i know a woman who had breast cancer and they paid for everything including yearly check ups to make sure she's cancer free. they can also put the land in a trust and make someone else the executor. usually their heirs.
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    I smell bullshit.

    Hard working people yet she only earns 125 dollars a week?

    I earned that in 11th grade working at lil caesars pizza.
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • macgyver06macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    keep giving united health care 30 dollars a month and you will never ever ever have free health care..

    if we act like slaves, we will be treated as so
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    nick1977 wrote:
    I had a client come into my office today. It is a couple, in their 50's. The man is a self employed truck driver, making very little money (and even less since he started going through cancer treatments). The woman makes $125 per week as a receptionist. They own a small house, and he inherited 60 acres of land from his father. They cannot afford health insurance, even though both are good, hard working people. The man has been diagnosed with colon cancer, and need extensive treatment that he cannot pay for.

    They told me that the land is the only thing they have, and were planning on living on it when they retire. Now they are afraid that they must sell it to pay for his cancer treatment.

    He can only qualify for Medicaid assistance after selling the land and using the proceeds to pay for his treatment.

    This is wrong. Cancer can hit any one of us. It is not right for some people to have to use all of their assets to pay for treatment because they do not have the money to pay for health insurance. If I got cancer, I could keep my life savings because my health insurance would pay for my treatments.

    This is just wrong. I don't know what the solution is, but there is a double standard.....we make the lower income bracket who cannot afford health insurance sell all they have to pay for their health care for life threatning problems, while middle inocme and up, who are covered by health insurance, can keep their life savings because their insurance will pay for their care.

    This is not right. I believe everyone should have health coverage for catestrophic life threatning injuries (I'm not talking about routine medical procedures). Cancer can hit any one of us at any time. I think society has a duty to take care of those people. If one cannot afford health insurance, the government should pick up the tab.

    I don't know what the solution is, but I just recognize that this is unjust, and is not right in a society where we have abundant resources.


    The problem is health insurance itself. It is a monopoly whose sole interest is to make costs as high as possible so that everyone is FORCED to have insurance. It dictates to health providers what they must charge.

    I guarantee that if health insurance were banned and people had to pay directly out of pocket for their care and medications , healthcare costs would come down due to competition.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    It is sad to see good people suffer. I'm pretty torn when it comes to universal healthcare. While I would love to see every person have medical insurance I also don't want our government involved at all. I have actually been doing some research to see if insurance companies in my region would allow uninsured workers form a large group in order to benefit from a group rate. in 2000 there where about 1,057,000 uninsured people in New Jersey. If regional insurance campanies, such as Horizon Blue Cross and Oxford Healthcare, where to create groups of about 50,000 where people could participate in, their monthly premiums would be affordable. Again it's just an idea I had and I have been trying to talk to people within the industry to see if it is a doable solution.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    nick1977 wrote:
    They told me that the land is the only thing they have, and were planning on living on it when they retire. Now they are afraid that they must sell it to pay for his cancer treatment.
    I feel for people who've done poor financial planning and now are in financial straits due to their lack of foresight. But what's so special about this piece of land? If it was money that was left to them I hop ethey'd have no qualms about using it for cancer treatment. They have the option of taking out a reverse mortgage.

    I'm all for universal medical coverage. But you do know it's only going to be paid for through increased taxes, such as an inheritance tax and income tax. In which case I'm sure this couple would have been bitching that they couldn't afford to inherit the land in the first place and that the wife's take home pay was only $80 per week.

    They should count themselves lucky that a) they have the piece of land in the first place, and b) that there is Medicaid as a backstop once their financial resources are used up. But to be bitching that they are expected to use up their financial resources when disiaster hits while they haven't been lobbying to pay way higher taxes is so self servign that it makes the discussion non-sensical.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • nick1977nick1977 Posts: 327
    surferdude wrote:
    I feel for people who've done poor financial planning and now are in financial straits due to their lack of foresight. But what's so special about this piece of land? If it was money that was left to them I hop ethey'd have no qualms about using it for cancer treatment. They have the option of taking out a reverse mortgage.

    I'm all for universal medical coverage. But you do know it's only going to be paid for through increased taxes, such as an inheritance tax and income tax. In which case I'm sure this couple would have been bitching that they couldn't afford to inherit the land in the first place and that the wife's take home pay was only $80 per week.

    They should count themselves lucky that a) they have the piece of land in the first place, and b) that there is Medicaid as a backstop once their financial resources are used up. But to be bitching that they are expected to use up their financial resources when disiaster hits while they haven't been lobbying to pay way higher taxes is so self servign that it makes the discussion non-sensical.

    These people do not have much education, and are unskilled people. They will use the land to pay for treatment if they have to, and they plan on it, but what I am saying is is that it is not right.

    Cancer can hit anyone...rich or poor......it is not right that an uneducated person with just a little bit of money has to use all they own to pay for their treatment when the rich man (or middle class) who has an employer that can pay for health insurance will have decent coverange and does not have to use their life savings to pay for the same treatment.

    As far as increased taxes, I am all for the estate tax....but the estate tax would not have applied to a piece of real estate worth $60,000. All these people have is $60,000....they were going to use that land for their retirement, and now they use it for cancer treatments. Cancer is bad enough. I'm just saying if these people were educated, had good paying jobs, and could afford health insurance, they could keep their land just because of their social status.

    I am just saying that is not right. They have not bitched at all about their situation...they came to me for legal advice, and I am giving it to them. I am bitching for them because it is not right that they have to use all of the money that they have for this when the same person in a different social status would be mostly covered by health insurance.

    These people have not griped or complained at all....they are just doing all they can to get through the situation.....I am the one griping....I don't mind paying higher taxes if it is used for a good cause.....and health coverage for life threatning illnesses for those who cannot afford health insurance is a good cause.
  • nick1977 wrote:
    I had a client come into my office today. It is a couple, in their 50's. The man is a self employed truck driver, making very little money (and even less since he started going through cancer treatments). The woman makes $125 per week as a receptionist. They own a small house, and he inherited 60 acres of land from his father. They cannot afford health insurance, even though both are good, hard working people. The man has been diagnosed with colon cancer, and need extensive treatment that he cannot pay for.

    They told me that the land is the only thing they have, and were planning on living on it when they retire. Now they are afraid that they must sell it to pay for his cancer treatment.

    He can only qualify for Medicaid assistance after selling the land and using the proceeds to pay for his treatment.

    This is wrong. Cancer can hit any one of us. It is not right for some people to have to use all of their assets to pay for treatment because they do not have the money to pay for health insurance. If I got cancer, I could keep my life savings because my health insurance would pay for my treatments.

    This is just wrong. I don't know what the solution is, but there is a double standard.....we make the lower income bracket who cannot afford health insurance sell all they have to pay for their health care for life threatning problems, while middle inocme and up, who are covered by health insurance, can keep their life savings because their insurance will pay for their care.

    This is not right. I believe everyone should have health coverage for catestrophic life threatning injuries (I'm not talking about routine medical procedures). Cancer can hit any one of us at any time. I think society has a duty to take care of those people. If one cannot afford health insurance, the government should pick up the tab.

    I don't know what the solution is, but I just recognize that this is unjust, and is not right in a society where we have abundant resources.

    This is not "wrong". The "duty" you speak of does not exist. The "solution" is certainly not sactioning theft, and the "abundant resources" you speak of are people, not pawns in whatever guilt trade you propose.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,492
    nick1977 wrote:
    These people do not have much education, and are unskilled people. They will use the land to pay for treatment if they have to, and they plan on it, but what I am saying is is that it is not right.

    Cancer can hit anyone...rich or poor......it is not right that an uneducated person with just a little bit of money has to use all they own to pay for their treatment when the rich man (or middle class) who has an employer that can pay for health insurance will have decent coverange and does not have to use their life savings to pay for the same treatment.

    As far as increased taxes, I am all for the estate tax....but the estate tax would not have applied to a piece of real estate worth $60,000. All these people have is $60,000....they were going to use that land for their retirement, and now they use it for cancer treatments. Cancer is bad enough. I'm just saying if these people were educated, had good paying jobs, and could afford health insurance, they could keep their land just because of their social status.

    I am just saying that is not right. They have not bitched at all about their situation...they came to me for legal advice, and I am giving it to them. I am bitching for them because it is not right that they have to use all of the money that they have for this when the same person in a different social status would be mostly covered by health insurance.

    These people have not griped or complained at all....they are just doing all they can to get through the situation.....I am the one griping....I don't mind paying higher taxes if it is used for a good cause.....and health coverage for life threatning illnesses for those who cannot afford health insurance is a good cause.

    I see where you are coming from. Something does have to be done, I'm not convinced it's Universal Health Care (gov't provided), but something needs ot be done.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    nick1977 wrote:
    These people do not have much education, and are unskilled people. They will use the land to pay for treatment if they have to, and they plan on it, but what I am saying is is that it is not right.

    Cancer can hit anyone...rich or poor......it is not right that an uneducated person with just a little bit of money has to use all they own to pay for their treatment when the rich man (or middle class) who has an employer that can pay for health insurance will have decent coverange and does not have to use their life savings to pay for the same treatment.

    As far as increased taxes, I am all for the estate tax....but the estate tax would not have applied to a piece of real estate worth $60,000. All these people have is $60,000....they were going to use that land for their retirement, and now they use it for cancer treatments. Cancer is bad enough. I'm just saying if these people were educated, had good paying jobs, and could afford health insurance, they could keep their land just because of their social status.

    I am just saying that is not right. They have not bitched at all about their situation...they came to me for legal advice, and I am giving it to them. I am bitching for them because it is not right that they have to use all of the money that they have for this when the same person in a different social status would be mostly covered by health insurance.

    These people have not griped or complained at all....they are just doing all they can to get through the situation.....I am the one griping....I don't mind paying higher taxes if it is used for a good cause.....and health coverage for life threatning illnesses for those who cannot afford health insurance is a good cause.
    I live in a country where there is universal medical coverage. Unless you've really researched what this means to a country and it's people you're really just complaining that life aint't fair.

    First, why would or should their land have been tax exempt? They did nothin gto earn it after all.

    Second, do you have any idea of the wait times for medical services in Canada? Or the fact that if you move between cities you could go years without a family physician due to a doctor shortage. A doctor shortage fueled by the universal medical coverage system.

    Universal medical coverage is not a miracle cure. Taxes are significantly higher and odds are that would they would have had to sold the property long ago just to support themselves. All that said I think it's nearly a crime that the US doesn't offer a better form of universal medical insurance, one that requires monthly payments and is geared towards high risk medical issues and not day to day health care.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • I see where you are coming from. Something does have to be done, I'm not convinced it's Universal Health Care (gov't provided), but something needs ot be done.

    Let me tell you what needs to be done. The man needs cancer treatment. That's what needs to be done, for him.

    Now, you can either give him that treatment, you can deny him that treatment, or you can force someone else to do it for you.

    Which do you choose?
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    This is not "wrong". The "duty" you speak of does not exist. The "solution" is certainly not sactioning theft, and the "abundant resources" you speak of are people, not pawns in whatever guilt trade you propose.

    everyone wants free services but nobody wants higher taxes to pay for the services. people cry about the poor education system but every election they vote down higher taxes to pay for more schools. ironic; isn't it?
  • nick1977nick1977 Posts: 327
    This is not "wrong". The "duty" you speak of does not exist. The "solution" is certainly not sactioning theft, and the "abundant resources" you speak of are people, not pawns in whatever guilt trade you propose.

    So you don't think it is wrong or unjust for people to be treated differently based upon social status? Health care, especially in life threatening conditions should be a right, not a privilege to those who can afford it.

    If government does not have a duty to look out for the best interest of the people, then what is the purpose of government? Illnesses can hit anyone, at anytime. No person is exempt. We live in this world with other people. We live in a society. We depend on society in everything we do. We cannot function without other people. I think a role of government is to promote public health and safety of all of its citizens. It is not just or right for society to treat people who get illnesses differently based on social status or ability to afford insurance.

    The abnundant resources are not people. Western civilization has an abundance of resources. Individuals control the resources, but you cannot deny that Western civilization has an abundance of resources. A portion of those resources are contributed to the government each year to keep the country going. If we have an abundance of resources and are able to provide health care to all of the citizens who cannot afford resources, then shouldn't we do so? It could be you one day who are diagnosed with cancer and need government assistance to pay for the treatments. It could be me. It could be any of us.

    How is taxing theft? I agree that there comes a point when taxation becomes too high and too burdensome. If that happens, the government is abusing its authority. However, it takes money for a government to do its job. Taxing is the only way for a government to raise the revenue. We are a collective society. Each one of us has control over some of the resources of this country. We all benefit to a tremendous degree because of our government. As a citizen who receives benefits from the government, it is our duty to pay taxes. This is not theft.

    I don't understand your point. All I am dong is pointing out what I perceive to be unjust.....the poor man becomes even poorer when a life threatning illness hits. The middle class and up man will most likely be covered by insurance and will not be out a lot of money when a life threatning illness hits him. I am not necessarily proposing universal heath care for everything, but I do think the government (really society as a whole) has a duty to take care of the under privileged of society.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    do they have Scottish relatives? if they do get them over here and we'll treat them for free.

    We currently have people in England moving to Scotland as we offer the full cancer treatments and England doesn't... which is fucked up but there you go.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • everyone wants free services but nobody wants higher taxes to pay for the services. people cry about the poor education system but every election they vote down higher taxes to pay for more schools. ironic; isn't it?

    In the cases that it happens, yes it is ironic. However, plenty of people will vote for higher taxes for schools, militaries, health care, etc. The problem is not found in the irony or lack thereof....the problem is found in the mindset of these slavedrivers who will abdicate the resposibilities their own moral codes demand and force them onto others. It's disgusting.

    If you want universal health care, become a doctor and set your prices as low as you wish.

    God I hate this issue........
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    Let me tell you what needs to be done. The man needs cancer treatment. That's what needs to be done, for him.

    Now, you can either give him that treatment, you can deny him that treatment, or you can force someone else to do it for you.

    Which do you choose?
    The purity of your ideals is so crystal, it's almost blinding.

    But you missed one bit. This man doesn't need anything. He always has the option to die.
  • prismprism Posts: 2,440
    surferdude wrote:

    Second, do you have any idea of the wait times for medical services in Canada? Or the fact that if you move between cities you could go years without a family physician due to a doctor shortage.


    what makes you think that wait times are so much less in the US? fact is they're just as long except when it comes to a very few non-emergent services.
    it's the same deal if you move to another city inthe US, there are many areas of the US where it's impossible to get a family physican, especially in rural areas. these doctor shortages are fueled by the insurance companys that are stripping the DR.s ability to run a practice after paying the outrageous malpratice insurance premiums.
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
    angels share laughter
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
  • nick1977 wrote:
    So you don't think it is wrong or unjust for people to be treated differently based upon social status?

    No I don't. Neither do you, since you likely support higher taxes for the rich or free health care for the poor.
    Health care, especially in life threatening conditions should be a right, not a privilege to those who can afford it.

    Sigh....

    Health care cannot be a right unless you have a right to my body. Do you?
    If government does not have a duty to look out for the best interest of the people, then what is the purpose of government?

    To protect the rights of the people, not "look out for their best interest". Let me explain to you the insanity of the above statement:

    Universal Health Care is not in my best interest. I am a person. I live in this country. Will you now abandon it, or will you amend your belief that the duty of government is to look out for the best interests of some of the people?

    That should take you back to your first question.
    Illnesses can hit anyone, at anytime. No person is exempt. We live in this world with other people. We live in a society. We depend on society in everything we do. We cannot function without other people.

    You've strung together some facts or quasi-facts here without any relation to each other. Yes, illness can hit anyone. And yes, we do live in this world with other people in a society. No, we cannot function very well without other people.

    Now, how does this give you the right to force me to pay for your health care? Can I not just use these same facts to then say that you have the obligation to build me a palace? Or maybe buy me a Porsche???
    The abnundant resources are not people. Western civilization has an abundance of resources.

    What resources??? Is granite going to cure your cancer? No. A doctor will, using treatments and medicines invented by a person.

    If all you need are non-human "resources", knock yourself out. But you need more than that. You need my labor. You need the brilliance of people other than yourself. You can either trade for it, or you can steal it. Make your choice, but don't lie about it.
    Individuals control the resources, but you cannot deny that Western civilization has an abundance of resources. A portion of those resources are contributed to the government each year to keep the country going. If we have an abundance of resources and are able to provide health care to all of the citizens who cannot afford resources, then shouldn't we do so?

    Stop asking "shoulds" about "we". There is no should for "we". There is a "should" for you, and a "should" for me. Both of those shoulds are dictated by our individual moral codes. If you think you should be providing health care for the poor, then do it. What does it matter what I'm doing?
    It could be you one day who are diagnosed with cancer and need government assistance to pay for the treatments. It could be me. It could be any of us.

    Please sell your fear elsewhere.
    How is taxing theft?

    Because it's expropriation against the will of the owner at the point of a gun. That's the essence of theft. If taxation were optional, then it would be an exchange.
    I agree that there comes a point when taxation becomes too high and too burdensome. If that happens, the government is abusing its authority. However, it takes money for a government to do its job. Taxing is the only way for a government to raise the revenue. We are a collective society. Each one of us has control over some of the resources of this country. We all benefit to a tremendous degree because of our government. As a citizen who receives benefits from the government, it is our duty to pay taxes. This is not theft.

    It is no more your "duty" to pay taxes than it is your "duty" to let me steal into your home at night, tie you up, and collect whatever belongings you have that I may like. And this is not the only way for a government to raise revenue. Governments should raise revenue the way all people raise revenue: through the exchange of services for value.
    I don't understand your point. All I am dong is pointing out what I perceive to be unjust.....the poor man becomes even poorer when a life threatning illness hits. The middle class and up man will most likely be covered by insurance and will not be out a lot of money when a life threatning illness hits him. I am not necessarily proposing universal heath care for everything, but I do think the government (really society as a whole) has a duty to take care of the under privileged of society.

    There is no injustice in a sick man not receiving treatment. No human being owes a sick man treatment, by default. To treat a sick man while receiving nothing in return is charity, and charity can be a wonderful thing.

    You speak of "duty" as if you can simply define it for everyone. That is the height of arrogance and injustice. You have no right to tell me what my "duty" is unless you're willing to grant that same right to me.

    So, tell me, will you let me decide for you what your duties are?
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    prism wrote:
    what makes you think that wait times are so much less in the US? fact is they're just as long except when it comes to a very few non-emergent services.
    it's the same deal if you move to another city inthe US, there are many areas of the US where it's impossible to get a family physican, especially in rural areas. these doctor shortages are fueled by the insurance companys that are stripping the DR.s ability to run a practice after paying the outrageous malpratice insurance premiums.
    In the US the individual is always given the opportunity to buy the level of care they desire. They may not be able to afford it but the opportunity is still there. In Canada it is against the law to buy your healthcare. The opportunity to provide yourself your desired level of healthcare is outlawed. It makes you a criminal for wanting to look after yourself and your family.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • RainDog wrote:
    The purity of your ideals is so crystal, it's almost blinding.

    But you missed one bit. This man doesn't need anything. He always has the option to die.

    He does have that option. Perhaps I could advocate for "Universal Death", since everyone here seems to be in the business of dictating "solutions" for people. I guess the only question left is which sector of society I'll force to be executioners.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    He does have that option. Perhaps I could advocate for "Universal Death", since everyone here seems to be in the business of dictating "solutions" for people.
    No need to advocate for Universal Death, as death is already universal.
    I guess the only question left is which sector of society I'll force to be executioners.
    I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you don't currently have that right. Start a petition, or a vote drive. Maybe you could get some politicians on your side, get a law passed, you know.

    Me? I'll be advocating Universal Healthcare. Chances are neither of us will get what we want. But if I were a betting man, I'd place it on me.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,492
    Let me tell you what needs to be done. The man needs cancer treatment. That's what needs to be done, for him.

    Now, you can either give him that treatment, you can deny him that treatment, or you can force someone else to do it for you.

    Which do you choose?

    Didn't know it was up to me entirely...he gets treatment...you pay for it.

    Problem solved.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    what kind of cancer is it?
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • RainDog wrote:
    No need to advocate for Universal Death, as death is already universal.

    I suppose it is, yes. Perhaps "Universal Murder" would have been the better wording. But that probably won't fly with the voters. How about "Universal Temporal Liberation"???
    Chances are neither of us will get what we want. But if I were a betting man, I'd place it on me.

    Me too. Universal health care will be in place here within the next 15 years.
  • Didn't know it was up to me entirely...he gets treatment...you pay for it.

    Problem solved.

    Hehe...finally some straight talk on this issue.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    miller8966 wrote:
    what kind of cancer is it?
    _______________________
    nick1977 wrote:
    I had a client come into my office today. It is a couple, in their 50's. The man is a self employed truck driver, making very little money (and even less since he started going through cancer treatments). The woman makes $125 per week as a receptionist. They own a small house, and he inherited 60 acres of land from his father. They cannot afford health insurance, even though both are good, hard working people. The man has been diagnosed with colon cancer, and need extensive treatment that he cannot pay for.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • prismprism Posts: 2,440
    surferdude wrote:
    In the US the individual is always given the opportunity to buy the level of care they desire. They may not be able to afford it but the opportunity is still there. In Canada it is against the law to buy your healthcare. The opportunity to provide yourself your desired level of healthcare is outlawed. It makes you a criminal for wanting to look after yourself and your family.

    so according to you the rich deserve better health care because they can afford it. how is the opportunity still there if one can't pay for it?
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
    angels share laughter
    *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
  • nick1977nick1977 Posts: 327
    miller8966 wrote:
    what kind of cancer is it?

    Colon cancer
Sign In or Register to comment.