Healthcare going forward

[Benvolio]

FORGET about the "maybe" part - there would be a shift. Very much of a shift.

A healthy United States means that all other aspects of living here will operate better. Having the health to continue to live life is THE most important of all factors for humans AND all other living organisms.

I consider health care, and (for people who are legally here) education and the unconditional right to vote, to be OBLIGATIONS, nothing less. Indeed I extend these rights entirely to those who are incarcerated and, yes, that even includes voting on Death Row.

If not, how do congressional districts "get away with" counting the incarcerated within their districts, when they are drawn? With prisoners in most districts not being allowed to vote, it gives unequal power to those "legal" voters in prison districts. JUST CURIOUS, a side question...does anybody know if "estimated" undocumented/illegal aliens are counted when districts are being drawn? They shouldn't be counted either, in redistricting. Of course the minor children of legal voters cannot vote, but they are part of those families and need to be counted in redistricting, as they have skin in the game.

All aspects of life are all about, FIRST, being in good health, and all else follows from that. Education is expensive, but it's also highly budget-positive as it "pays for itself" a few times over by producing workers and jobs which are much more competitive in the world. Can one imagine what place the USA would have in the world if nobody was educated past Grade 8? Assuring the right to vote has only negligible cost at the most, and I feel is an OBLIGATION for any society that considers itself to be human.

Derailing, derailing.

 

[TX-Beau]

Derailing, derailing.

Avoiding, avoiding.

 

[KaraBulut]

...They question is why do all those non contributors deserve health care at the expense of workers but you want fix all the other problems...

Because the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy live in a society in which communicable disease doesn't select its victims based upon their ability to pay.

If you do a little look-back in American history, you'll see this thing called tuberculosis that killed thousands of people. It did so because of poor sanitation, unpasteurized milk, malnutrition and squalid living conditions. This went on for decades until the US invested money in a public health campaign to address the health of society as a whole.

This is the same strategy that has eliminated diseases that used to affect (and often kill) thousands of people... like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, typhoid, cholera, et al.

As long as you have unhealthy, disadvantaged people in a society, you increase the risk for everyone in society. This is why we want to ensure that there's a basic level of healthcare- because a community is only as healthy as it's least healthy members.

 

[gsdx]

Derailing, derailing.

Just like Trump, you are quick to accuse everybody else of doing things you do with great regularity.

TrumpCare failed. Get over it.

 

[Sausy]

If Ben would be reflective rather than reflexive, would do him and all of us a world of good. Kara Balut gave a great basic perspective on how on a level of enlightened self interest we should aim for a basic level of health care for all. It also should work on a moral view... basic decency and concern for others just as fellow people.

If Jesus walked among us today and hung out with the "sinners" and kept on preaching love and kindness, the Christian right would accuse him of being the Anti Christ and being in league with the devil. They say they love Jesus, but they don't know him. They love the show of piety, the "fear" of God... but they don't act Christian at all. Jesus extended his hand to all but in particular spent time with the least in society...you never would hear of Jesus hanging around with the corporate lobbyists or megachurch pastors if he were around these days. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". Pretty much NOT the current conservative thinking today.

 

[TX-Beau]

If Ben would be reflective rather than reflexive, would do him and all of us a world of good. Kara Balut gave a great basic perspective on how on a level of enlightened self interest we should aim for a basic level of health care for all. It also should work on a moral view... basic decency and concern for others just as fellow people.

If Jesus walked among us today and hung out with the "sinners" and kept on preaching love and kindness, the Christian right would accuse him of being the Anti Christ and being in league with the devil. They say they love Jesus, but they don't know him. They love the show of piety, the "fear" of God... but they don't act Christian at all. Jesus extended his hand to all but in particular spent time with the least in society...you never would hear of Jesus hanging around with the corporate lobbyists or megachurch pastors if he were around these days. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me". Pretty much NOT the current conservative thinking today.

N*****s aren't Ben's brothers.

 

[Kulindahr]

Stop evading and derailing. Why are able bodied criminals outside prison, welfare people, invaders and underground economy entitled to health care paid for by someone else's labor. The constitution does not entitle every one or anyone to live their lives on welfare as you claim. It does guarantee liberty and prohibits involuntary servitude. Forcing some to support others and provide them free health care, is a denial of liberty and an imposition of involuntary servitude.

1. Why do you continue to throw away the country's Judeo-Christian heritage?

2. For an alleged lawyer, you have a very warped view of involuntary servitude. As used in the Constitution, the term does not include the paying of taxes.

 

[Kulindahr]

Avoiding, avoiding.

Most definitely avoiding -- he has yet to respond to this:

It's irrelevant whether they "deserve" it. We are the ones who deserve it -- we owe it to ourselves to take care of those who are part of our people.

You prate about the nation and assimilation, but you give those no substance appropriate to those constituting a people. A people is a family writ large, and what family worth its name does not take care of its own? It is not because of the worth of the individuals to whom care is given, but for the sake of the worth of the individuals who give it that health care for all is an obligation: if we do not grant it, how dare we claim to be their fellow-citizens?

And you maintain that we have a Judeo-Christian heritage, but that claim is just noise in the wind if we do not honor it by treating others as we would treat ourselves. I remind you at this point of the origin of a phrase you hate: straight out of the Bible, right out of that Judeo-Christian heritage you claim to honor, comes the admonition "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- yes, Marx stole it, though he didn't get it quite right, since the Apostles didn't require everyone to give up all wealth. It comes from the book of Acts, but it is also from Jesus' own words, when He said "From him to whom much is given, much is required." Yet Jesus' words only echoed those of the prophets, who condemned those who own multiple houses and fancy estates yet do not see to it that the poor are housed and fed.

Either we are a people, and one with a Judeo-Christian heritage, or we are not. You cannot invoke the words appropriate to being a people, or having that heritage, yet ignore the substance -- or rather you can, but then the other side of the Judeo-Christian heritage must kick in, naming you a whitewashed tomb, a dignified sepulchre with only death inside.

So, Ben, man up and respond!

 

[Kulindahr]

Because the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy live in a society in which communicable disease doesn't select its victims based upon their ability to pay.

If you do a little look-back in American history, you'll see this thing called tuberculosis that killed thousands of people. It did so because of poor sanitation, unpasteurized milk, malnutrition and squalid living conditions. This went on for decades until the US invested money in a public health campaign to address the health of society as a whole.

This is the same strategy that has eliminated diseases that used to affect (and often kill) thousands of people... like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, typhoid, cholera, et al.

As long as you have unhealthy, disadvantaged people in a society, you increase the risk for everyone in society. This is why we want to ensure that there's a basic level of healthcare- because a community is only as healthy as it's least healthy members.

Beautiful statement of the argument from pragmatism.

 

[gsdx]

Most definitely avoiding -- he has yet to respond to this:

So, Ben, man up and respond!

He doesn't respond when he doesn't have one. I asked him the same question 5 different times and he ignored them, and when he did respond, it had nothing to do with my question.

He ignores, he avoids, or he gives the same response we've read dozens and dozens of times. And, when all else fails, he accuses attacks.

I can't think of a single question that he's answered.

 

[Benvolio]

Because the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy live in a society in which communicable disease doesn't select its victims based upon their ability to pay.

If you do a little look-back in American history, you'll see this thing called tuberculosis that killed thousands of people. It did so because of poor sanitation, unpasteurized milk, malnutrition and squalid living conditions. This went on for decades until the US invested money in a public health campaign to address the health of society as a whole.

This is the same strategy that has eliminated diseases that used to affect (and often kill) thousands of people... like smallpox, polio, diphtheria, typhoid, cholera, et al.

As long as you have unhealthy, disadvantaged people in a society, you increase the risk for everyone in society. This is why we want to ensure that there's a basic level of healthcare- because a community is only as healthy as it's least healthy members.

We controlled tuberculosis and the other diseases without Obamacare. It that is hardly an argument for dismantling our system. .

 

[Kulindahr]

He doesn't respond when he doesn't have one. I asked him the same question 5 different times and he ignored them, and when he did respond, it had nothing to do with my question.

He ignores, he avoids, or he gives the same response we've read dozens and dozens of times. And, when all else fails, he accuses attacks.

I can't think of a single question that he's answered.

This one is critical: if he can't answer it, he stands revealed as a complete hypocrite, spouting one thing but in practice denying it.

 

[frankfrank]

We controlled tuberculosis and the other diseases without Obamacare. It that is hardly an argument for dismantling our system. .

Right...except that YOU want it completely dismantled more than anybody else on this entire website does.

 

[frankfrank]

I'm trying to find the list of things that the Republican substitute for the AHCA was supposed to ELIMINATE from coverage - such as covering autism and mental health, clinic visits, emergency room visits, diagnostic testing, etc.

I can't find that list; can somebody point me there?

 

[Stardreamer]

I'm trying to find the list of things that the Republican substitute for the AHCA was supposed to ELIMINATE from coverage - such as covering autism and mental health, clinic visits, emergency room visits, diagnostic testing, etc.

I can't find that list; can somebody point me there?

That because they were trying to pass it through reconciliation rules which can only be used to deal with things that reduce the deficit. The real purpose of the AHCA was not to fix anything but to dynamite the tax and subsidy foundations of the ACA as a means to force the Democrats to the table to fix the resulting mess.

 

[Benvolio]

Right...except that YOU want it completely dismantled more than anybody else on this entire website does.

Nonsense. I said no such thing. I want Obamacare repealed. Retain medicare and medicaid for the poor and elderly. You guys always think if some government is good, total government would be better.

 

[Stardreamer]

Right...except that YOU want it completely dismantled more than anybody else on this entire website does.

More than even Trump and the Republicans.

 

[rareboy]

You are not the originator either and the thread is not about what other countries do. Suddenly you think that only the originator can object to derailing. I will remember that the next time you scold out of you own threads.

Oh Bullshit.

If you follow the entire thread, it covers a lot of ground....you are just crying 'derailment' because you don't like the answers to your xenophobic and morally repugnant positions....but you have no intellectual authority here.

 

[KaraBulut]

We controlled tuberculosis and the other diseases without Obamacare.

Because the 673,338 beds that were added to treat tuberculosis were free. A patient didn't need insurance to cover free healthcare.

Immunizations for childhood diseases were free.

...I can't find that list; can somebody point me there?

In the legislation, it's referred to as "Minimum Essential Coverage" and "10 Essential Health Benefits".

 

[rareboy]

Because the 673,338 beds that were added to treat tuberculosis were free. A patient didn't need insurance to cover free healthcare.

Immunizations for childhood diseases were free.

Well that should make Benvolio lose his shit.