Surgery VS Ransom

You need a heart transplant or you'll die. The heart transplant costs $250,000, and you don't have health insurance.

Is this any different than someone putting a gun to your head and demanding $250,000 to not pull the trigger? If it's different, how?

The guy with the gun is doing it to you. A better analogy would be if you're hanging off the side of a cliff and a passer-by wants $250000 to pull you up.

not even that. it woudnt cost the guy 250k to pull your ass out of danger.

If you have a bad heart, you die. If you have 250K to spare, you live. no ransom. just no communism, either.

Yeah man. Shit happens. Life's hard. Get a helmet. I don't think its very comparable at all, in my opinion.

I think Happy Monkey's analogy is better.

I will never understand how a wealthy nation can accept health inequality within its borders. A nation which can afford to ensure its citizens have access to the best medical care and chooses not to, in my view fails its citizens. I include my own nation in this. We are currently failing our citizens by allowing health inequalities. In the ward I live in, the average life expectancy is ten years greater than that of the people who live in the ward I represent as a councillor. The distance between them is four miles. Four miles and ten years difference. Babies born four miles from my home are almost twice as likely to die before they reach their first birthday, than babies born on my street. Health inequality affects every part of life and death.

DanaC;325498 wrote:

I will never understand how a wealthy nation can accept health inequality within its borders.

If we make all health care equal, then as a political decision we have to mandate what the limit of care is. We can't provide everything to everyone without limits. If everyone gets the same basic health care, where does innovation come from? Health care is going to be limited by the state or by economics either way can be seen as unfair. We're in the midst of a similar attempted leveling in American public education. National standards are taking the individual out of the picture much as national health care attempts to ignore individual difference. There is no perfect answer and right now Americas public/private health care hybrid manages to hit that sweet spot where nobody gets decent care.

right now Americas public/private health care hybrid manages to hit that sweet spot where nobody gets decent care.

Not true. The wealthy get excellent health care.

True. The extremely wealthy are getting good care.

There was a news item last week about this black doctor who chose to work in a hospital close to the low income neighborhood in which he grew up.

The number of women there who were dying from breast cancer appalled him; most did not seek treatment early because of lack of money and insurance.

In a day where early detection of breast cancer should be accessible to every woman it is a disgrace. After all, think of all the money saved by smashing our boobs in a vise when an ultrasound is not only less painful it's more accurate.

lumberjim;325144 wrote:

...If you have a bad heart, you die. If you have 250K to spare, you live. no ransom. just no communism, either.

freshnesschronic;325480 wrote:

Yeah man. Shit happens. Life's hard. Get a helmet. I don't think its very comparable at all, in my opinion.

How about if it was your kid, and you had no health insurance?

Do you think it's communism to help someone who is truly in need, just to survive?

Spexxvet;325541 wrote:

How about if it was your kid

Oh I just hate it when people say that. Do your beliefs, morals, convictions, whatever, go right out the window when your own family is involved??? Yuk.

So you are morally convinced that the poor should be left to die?

DanaC;325627 wrote:

So you are morally convinced that the poor should be left to die?

Why not? Leaves more 'stuff' for the more deserving. :cool:

DanaC;325627 wrote:

So you are morally convinced that the poor should be left to die?

Yes, of course, I mean obviously.... that's exactly what I said isn't it? :rolleyes:

DanaC;325627 wrote:

So you are morally convinced that the poor should be left to die?

I'd suggest thet she's just as convinced of that as you are that the State needs to decide who dies.

I'd rather the state decide than the economy

Our state and our economy are the same: they both suck!

A free economy would be a more moral choice.

This guy has freed his practice from third party payers, which are the real problem with the American system.

Griff;325666 wrote:

A free economy would be a more moral choice.

This guy has freed his practice from third party payers, which are the real problem with the American system.

Third parties are the real problem for relatively healthy people who are only getting routine preventative care. Yes. But they will save your life if you really get a major illness and can't afford the very expensive treatments on your own.

Those special situations are what insurance companies are actually good at and were originally for, distributing the cost of prohibitively expensive procedures/meds. They should not be skimming off the top of the day to day relationship between the doctor and patient.

Griff;325643 wrote:

I'd suggest thet she's just as convinced of that as you are that the State needs to decide who dies.

The only one who should decide who dies is the person in question or their designee. The state should be in charge of saying that nobody else makes the decision.

jinx;325625 wrote:

Oh I just hate it when people say that. Do your beliefs, morals, convictions, whatever, go right out the window when your own family is involved??? Yuk.

That kind of question puts things in perspective, and many people's "beliefs, morals, convictions" change. For instance, Dick Cheney's issue with his lesbian daughter, and stem cell research opponents when Dutch Reagan bit the big one.

I'm disgusted at the "I say let them die" attitude soem people have. Especially when they have a different feeling when it hits close to home.

Spexxvet;325541 wrote:

How about if it was your kid, and you had no health insurance?

I'd do what it takes to save my kid. I wouldn't demand that you do it.

I'm disgusted at the "I say let them die" attitude soem people have. Especially when they have a different feeling when it hits close to home.

i'm disgusted by the bald faced entitlement some people exhibit.

I didn't say let them die. But no one owes you a heart if yours doesn't work.

You put this retarded analogy up there and expect people to treat it seriously? Really. re-read it. it's retarded.

A minority of the people require the most expensive health care. People who work in health care need incentive to do it. Economics are a big part of the problem. Large HMO's, Pharmacy industries, and Insurance companies are the one's getting rich. The health care providers are not, well a few are, but not most.

So you smoke all your life and suddenly expect my tax dollars to pay for your lung transplant? You weigh 300 pounds and suddenly it is my responsibility to pay for your knee replacement? You drive drunk and are involved in an MVA, spend 3 months in ICU and have a head injury that requires life long nursing care and I should pay for that? You sneak into the US illegally and I should pay for your complicated OB care and the 4 months in ICU for your premature baby? You live on bagles and cream cheese and chips all your life and I should pay for your Fem-pop by-pass? You are a diabetic and don't care for yourself so now I should pay for your dialysis and subsequent kidney transplant. The list goes on... Where does it stop. Well I guess you could say that because of the color of your skin that your ancestors never had a choice to come to this country so it is my fault that you are the way you are and so I should have to pay for your free health care. I don't buy it. Like someone else said, life ain't fair, wear a helmet.

Well I guess you could say that because of the color of your skin that your ancestors never had a choice to come to this country so it is my fault that you are the way you are and so I should have to pay for your free health care.

You seem inordinately interested in skin colour.

Not everyone (or even most) who needs medical assistance, is in that position because of their lifestyle/carelessness/human folly.

You're right. Life is unfair. Society is the helmet.

Spexxvet;325109 wrote:

You need a heart transplant or you'll die. The heart transplant costs $250,000, and you don't have health insurance.

Is this any different than someone putting a gun to your head and demanding $250,000 to not pull the trigger? If it's different, how?

If you're 60, heavy smoker, overweight, bad diet, too unhealthy to be employed (hence no insurance), then yes, it's different.

If you're a child with an incurable heart defect, then no.

How about if you're a clean living, hard working father of four whose employer doesn't include health benefits in with the remuneration package and your minimum wage doesn't stretch to health insurance?

monster;326010 wrote:

If you're 60, heavy smoker, overweight, bad diet, too unhealthy to be employed (hence no insurance), then yes, it's different.

If you're a child with an incurable heart defect, then no.

I would agree with that.

DanaC;326008 wrote:

You seem inordinately interested in skin colour.

Not everyone (or even most) who needs medical assistance, is in that position because of their lifestyle/carelessness/human folly.

You're right. Life is unfair. Society is the helmet.

Society is not the helmet if you are stupid. If you are stupid you have no helmet. Some of the skin color has nothing to do with health care. Idiot behaviors which force my bills to be higher and insurance premiums to be higher are the issue here.

DanaC;326012 wrote:

How about if you're a clean living, hard working father of four whose employer doesn't include health benefits in with the remuneration package and your minimum wage doesn't stretch to health insurance?

For those people we need a plan. This is not the person who is cranking up the rates. Look at any major hospital in the US and find out what are the most expensive patients they treat. #1 is trauma, and of those most are uninsured.

The healthcare system for things like heart transplants etc are considered necessary surgeries and therefore are based on a needs must scenario. That is, the most urgent is first in the list, and the operating expenses and a large portion of all the medical bills associated with the surgery are covered by the state.

Other forms of surgery which are considered elective surgeries, that is, non life threatening proceedures, have much longer waiting lists if you're waiting on public funding however, if you have private health cover, you can schedule these surgeries in much shorter periods of time.

I think the system we have here could be better, but I believe it's one of the best out there, and frees people from the moral dilema of having to decide who should live and who should die.

Hey Merc... I was born like this, my ins will run out soon, if I live that long. Where is my helmet?

DanaC;326012 wrote:

How about if you're a clean living, hard working father of four whose employer doesn't include health benefits in with the remuneration package and your minimum wage doesn't stretch to health insurance?

then you're an irresponsible asshole. If you can't afford to care for your kids, don't fucking have them. Who told us that it is our right to procreate beyond our ability to care for our offspring without government assistance?!

The decisions you make in your life have consequences.

rkzenrage;326094 wrote:

Hey Merc... I was born like this, my ins will run out soon, if I live that long. Where is my helmet?

You have no helmet and I have no responsibility to buy you one. My suggestion is for you to find a job that gives you insurance. Same thing is going to happen to my kids. Same thing will happen to my daughter in about 2 years when she graduates from college. I wish I could help, but you know it is part of growing up and moving on. In this day and age, in this country if you don't have a job with health insurance you are screwed. So to all you college kids out there with graduation in your sites, a job at the local coffee shop ain't going to cut it. Good luck.

Can't wait till rkz sees this last post from mercenary.

Hey, Merc... when you read the phrase, "I was born like this," did you think he meant as a college student with no job? Just wondering.

Clodfobble;326335 wrote:

Hey, Merc... when you read the phrase, "I was born like this," did you think he meant as a college student with no job? Just wondering.

I have no idea, but yea, something along the lines of: currently dependent on parents, soon to be on the job market. Is there something you want to tell me?

Aliantha;326330 wrote:

Can't wait till rkz sees this last post from mercenary.

Why should I know anything about him? This is a Fourm filled with people who don't know each other.

Why should you know anything about anyone?

Maybe you should take that into account before you make 'suggestions' to people you know nothing about.

Aliantha;326358 wrote:

Why should you know anything about anyone?

Maybe you should take that into account before you make 'suggestions' to people you know nothing about.

Why should I hold back my opinions when things are being discussed? When asked I will respond. I have no responibility to hold back my opinion when people enquire. "Where is my helmet?" This is a question.

Whatever you say...moron.

I just felt the need to share my opinion with you.

Aliantha;326376 wrote:

Whatever you say...moron.

I just felt the need to share my opinion with you.

So why does that make me a moron anymore than you?

It doesn't make you anything. It's just what I think of you.

:rainbo: :jig: :beer: :grouphug: :bong:

Aliantha;326379 wrote:

It doesn't make you anything. It's just what I think of you.

Thanks for clearing that up... moron.:madhop:

lol...no problem. It was my pleasure...really. :)

now now.....neither of you is any bigger a moron than the other......

Aliantha;326386 wrote:

lol...no problem. It was my pleasure...really. :)

:biggrinpi

Well in this case, I'm quite happy to give the floor to him...or even you lj. :)

lumberjim;325677 wrote:

I'd do what it takes to save my kid. I wouldn't demand that you do it.

Nobody's demanding anything. Obviously, there could be a scenario where you couldn't "do what it takes". What then?

lumberjim;325677 wrote:

i'm disgusted by the bald faced entitlement some people exhibit.

You view this as "entitlement"?

lumberjim;325677 wrote:

I didn't say let them die.

I was responding to this, not you.

freshnesschronic;325480 wrote:

Yeah man. Shit happens. Life's hard. Get a helmet.

lumberjim;325677 wrote:

You put this retarded analogy up there and expect people to treat it seriously? Really. re-read it. it's retarded.

People ARE treating it seriously. Even you. Does that make you retarded?

Spexxvet;326401 wrote:

Nobody's demanding anything.

Why sure they are. All of the latest democratic pundits are preaching it. People who are supporting allowing illegal aliens to stay in this country are preaching it. People who think they deserve a handout are demanding it.

Spexxvet;326401 wrote:

People ARE treating it seriously. Even you. Does that make you retarded?

yes! yes, it does. thanks.

lumberjim;326419 wrote:

yes! yes, it does. thanks.

No no - thank you!

Its not the United States government's job to spare no expense to keep everyone alive as long as possible. Sorry.

And if you make doctors government employees then our health care system will end up looking like our education system. Yep, everybody gets an education. The exact same education. Whether you live in Westchester, NY or Selma, Alabama.

You want government-provided health care? Its available. Its called the United States Military. But generals still get better treatment than privates.

Stop wanting stuff for free. Just stop it.

Not necessarily for free Beestie. In the UK we have the NHS and that delivers treatment 'free at the point of need', but we've all paid for it. We've paid for it in taxes and we've paid for it with National Insurance contributions. Even the very poor, make a small contribution (very small) out of their benefit payments. It isn't a perfect system by any means, but it seems much fairer to me. The wealthy usually pay and get themselves private treatment for some stuff, but interestingly, they rarely use private General Practitioners: for routine stuff they usually use the same system everybody else uses, because it's a good service and because they, like everyone else have already paid a small contribution to it.

Yeah, if I wasn't already convinced how much the NHS sucked before, all the various threads here about it by UK folks have really won me over... :rolleyes:

Getting back to the point.

I like Happy Monkey's analogy better, so...

How is it different? Ton of money for medical, or you die. Ton of money to help you from falling off a cliff, or you die.

Clodfobble;326527 wrote:

Yeah, if I wasn't already convinced how much the NHS sucked before, all the various threads here about it by UK folks have really won me over... :rolleyes:

I work in the NHS and I do whinge about the NHS - it should be much better for the amount of money it costs. But I think it's much better than nothing.

When my Dad was taken into hospital three weeks ago the one thing Mum didn't have to worry about finding money to pay for it. He had a whole series of tests and ended up lying in a hospital bed waiting for a theatre slot in order to have angioplasty.

We were frustrated that it took 13 days from admission to discharge but we knew he was in the best place. We moaned (esp Mum who doesn't drive and had to get lifts/ take the bus for the best part of two weeks - and missed him terribly of course) and commented on how in another country he'd have had the operation the same day. We didn't really talk about the fact that in another country they might have had to sell the house to pay for the operation, or in fact he might just have died (not referring to America here of course). Too depressing- better to moan about the bus journey instead.

The positive part of the waiting is that Dad is easily bored and hates to be away from all his little projects, so he promises faithfully he won't suffer chest pain stoically ever again - he'll be at the Doctors the same afternoon.

Glad to hear your Dad's on the mend SG.

My Dad has been taken into hospital for emergency treatment five times in the last two years. He has to have regular oxygen treatment and also uses a nebuliser daily. As a pensioner he doesn't even have to pay for his prescriptions.

For myself, I have regular medication which even at the standard prescription charge of £6.50 per item would amount to approx. £45 per month, except that I am able to buy a prepay certificate for £90 per year. When I was unemployed for two years I didn't even have to pay that. In the UK we moan a lot about the NHS....because it's not perfect and it could be run much better. What we don't have in the UK is an acceptance of the fact that if someone is poor they should just be abandoned to their fate. If I have to see my doctor, I don't have to check what money I have first. Dentists are a little different, we have some access to dentists on NHS, but still have to pay charges (even though much reduced from private prices) and lo and behold the number of Brits who don't go regularly to a dentist is very high. I recently had some serious pain in my tooth and went for a check up: I was told I needed two fillings and a root canal. For the treatment and the sedation ( I am dental phobic) I will have to pay £180. I am still in pain and haven't been for the treatment yet because I can't afford it. The idea that someone might have to make such a decision about something more serious appalls me. The sooner one seeks treatment the better usually, and many people who live in countries where seeing a doctor isn't free at the point of need will make the same calculation I have made over my teeth and just not go.....until they absolutely have to, at which point their overall health and even life may have been put at much greater risk by the delay.

DanaC;326499 wrote:

Not necessarily for free Beestie. In the UK we have the NHS and that delivers treatment 'free at the point of need', but we've all paid for it. We've paid for it in taxes and we've paid for it with National Insurance contributions. Even the very poor, make a small contribution (very small) out of their benefit payments. It isn't a perfect system by any means, but it seems much fairer to me. The wealthy usually pay and get themselves private treatment for some stuff, but interestingly, they rarely use private General Practitioners: for routine stuff they usually use the same system everybody else uses, because it's a good service and because they, like everyone else have already paid a small contribution to it.

And your taxes are out of this world. Your death tax on estates is even worse. VAT is bad enough. We don't want more taxes. I don't want 50% of my pay going to fund health care.

I think the horror of the our private payer system vs. your govt funded system is that it would be unthinkable here to have to wait 13 days for a lifesaving procedure done on an outpatient basis.

Regardless of insurance coverage, incidentally.

wolf;326635 wrote:

I think the horror of the our private payer system vs. your govt funded system is that it would be unthinkable here to have to wait 13 days for a lifesaving procedure done on an outpatient basis.

Regardless of insurance coverage, incidentally.

Even if the patient was stable and monitored? If Dad had needed immediate surgery he would have received it immediately. As it was, patients who already had scheduled operations took priority as he was considered safe.

I'm not asking this because I am trying to defend our system (which I have always admitted has faults) just to clarify.

I know in many countries in Europe he would have had his operation sooner because they have smaller waiting lists, as well as (effectively) free of charge. If he was unable to pay in the US (retired, fairly low pension) would he still have received immediate treatment if he was on a cardio ward?

wolf;326635 wrote:

I think the horror of the our private payer system vs. your govt funded system is that it would be unthinkable here to have to wait 13 days for a lifesaving procedure done on an outpatient basis.

Regardless of insurance coverage, incidentally.

On the other hand, the boss is scheduling cataract surgery 6 months out. Not life saving, though.

TheMercenary;326142 wrote:

You have no helmet and I have no responsibility to buy you one. My suggestion is for you to find a job that gives you insurance. Same thing is going to happen to my kids. Same thing will happen to my daughter in about 2 years when she graduates from college. I wish I could help, but you know it is part of growing up and moving on. In this day and age, in this country if you don't have a job with health insurance you are screwed. So to all you college kids out there with graduation in your sites, a job at the local coffee shop ain't going to cut it. Good luck.

Had one, left in an ambulance.
Guess since I'm worth more dead then alive to my family I should just take the obvious route?
Thanks, I often forget that I am worthless and need a reminder.
Perhaps that's not what's going on here. You don't seem like the kinda' guy that wants us, who really can't live without help, to just be wheeled into the woods and left to die because we are just in the way of you busy, busy, folks, perhaps?
It's just we don't fit into that simplistic, everything can be answered by a soundbyte, universe that we love to have in our head, isn't it?
I know, because I'm one of those guys myself. Read my posts.
But the idea that private businesses and families will really maintain the roads and schools and help the sick better than a social system all over the nation equally is insane.
I am a libertarian, I really am, but I am also moderate in some of my ideals. I do not think if we give a free hand to everyone all the time it will "all just work out in the end".
I believe, and have always believed that we are, at heart "how we treat the least of us". I never thought that would describe myself and am still quite objective about this.
But seriously, let me see... who was it that killed the disabled in their nation because they did not fit into the plan... hmmm... snappy dresser... it'll come to me...

You want to know what it really is, we/I remind you of your mortality, and that needs to go away. That is what a part of your mind whispers to you as soon as I wheel into the room, as soon as someone finds out how sick I am and especially that I am in chronic pain and cannot be helped.
They always start asking can "this" or "that" or "this" be done and then they want to go.
Mortality, something we are not accustomed to dealing with, not wired to, and I and those like me are a cold splash of water on your little immortality delusion.... and working that into your world view is just not an option because you just don't like the idea that you may have to become part of it someday.
It would take a week for your money to go away, a turn of the socio-political tide, insurance can end and move, things change... encouraging others and society to care for those less fortunate than they are and those who cannot care for themselves for generations lasts and is all we can truly do to ensure that we care for ourselves as we age and get sick.
Something at which the West is pathetic.

AH! AH! I CALL GODWIN.

Ibram;326724 wrote:

AH! AH! I CALL GODWIN.

Wait! Wasn't he talking about repubicans?

What's the difference?

I believe, and have always believed that we are, at heart "how we treat the least of us".

Well said rkzenrage.

rkzenrage;326652 wrote:

Had one, left in an ambulance.

Well I don't know you and I am new here, and you certainly don't know me, but it really does not change my view on things. I am sorry for your situation but taking my wealth and redistributing it to help every poor, disadvantaged, or handicapped person in the US is not an answer. My wife is handicapped. I happen to be lucky enough to take care of her and what ever she needs. She is not "as handicapped" as you sound since there are differing degrees of disability. The one thing that I have learned is that everyone, and I mean everyone, is one paycheck away from your situation. You have made a lot of assumptions about the way I feel from just a few posts. Maybe in time you, and others will see me differently, maybe not, but that is really not important to me.

We have some big issues to face in this country in the next 50 years. I will be dead and gone by then. I too am worth a lot more to my family dead, but that is because of huge insurance policies I pay for to take care of them in case of my untimely demise. No matter how you cut the mustard it is not a governments job to take care of every persons needs. I have no illusions of rescuing people. I just try to help out the ones around me that I can. But I will not do so at the expense of my own family or children. It is my responsibility as a parent to give them the best shot that I can in life. I work very hard to do that. I make enough to send my oldest to out of state college, but not because I have the cash on hand, but because I had to take out loans for her to send her. Choices were made. I also don't think self pity will get you very far. There are a ton of people a lot worse off than your situation sounds (from what I have gathered from this single post - not much I admit), and they seem to be doing very well. Anyhow, good luck.

rkzenrage;326652 wrote:

Something at which the West is pathetic.

On this thought, having been to the UK a few times and recently returning from a trip in Nov, I did notice that Europeans seem to do a really good job at caring for the elderly and disabled. Maybe I was fooled. But from what I saw it was more of a general attitude among the people that the elderly, esp, were more respected. Of course remember that we have states more than twice the size and economy of the UK, so maybe it is easier becasue of that. I don't know.

Sundae Girl;326638 wrote:

If he was unable to pay in the US (retired, fairly low pension) would he still have received immediate treatment if he was on a cardio ward?

The answer is yes, we have medicad and medicare. It will cover those costs, at a loss to the hospital I will say, but it will cover them. The problem here for people not receiving care is not among the poor but among the working poor and lower middle class who are under insured. I still say the answer is not a system like you have in the US or in Canada. These issues are not simplistic. You can not simply take a place the size of the US and apply solutions that apply to a country or economy the size of the UK. There are soooo many differences.

TheMercenary;326967 wrote:

...but taking my wealth and redistributing it to help every poor, disadvantaged, or handicapped person in the US is not an answer.

From your posts that I've read, I think this is the difference between you and me.

You don't want your wealth redistributed to the poor, disadvantaged, or handicapped people, and I'm ok with some of what little wealth I have helping out those folks. Including your wife, even though her husband's on-line persona comes across as heartless.

I don't want my wealth redistributed to those who are wealthy already, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, the executives of ENRON, Worldcom, Tyco, Chrysler, any airline, Big Oil, any religious-associated groups, politicians, and I may get back to you with some others, and you apparently don't mind helping out those folks.

TheMercenary;326967 wrote:

My wife is handicapped. I happen to be lucky enough to take care of her and what ever she needs. ....

And if you weren't that lucky....?

I think it is the state's job to make sure everyone can get decent health care. The state needs to invest in some issues and lay off others.

Spexxvet;327019 wrote:

I don't want my wealth redistributed to those who are wealthy already, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, the executives of ENRON, Worldcom, Tyco, Chrysler, any airline, Big Oil, any religious-associated groups, politicians, and I may get back to you with some others, and you apparently don't mind helping out those folks.


And if you weren't that lucky....?

I would agree with you. If I weren't that lucky I guess we would come up with another plan or be on the dole like others not so lucky.


I am not heartless. Just discussing the broader view of things.

TheMercenary;327112 wrote:

I would agree with you. If I weren't that lucky I guess we would come up with another plan or be on the dole like others not so lucky.


I am not heartless. Just discussing the broader view of things.

And quick to reconsider when the shoe is on the other foot. :right:

As I stated earlier, the idea is not to do that.

Spexxvet;327135 wrote:

And quick to reconsider when the shoe is on the other foot. :right:

Why would you say that??? I have never been asked.:rolleyes: Ass-u-mptions... And both of my shoes are on the correct feet. :D

TheMercenary;327138 wrote:

Why would you say that??? I have never been asked.

You were asked just now, and you said that you'd change your position if you were in the other situation.

TheMercenary;327138 wrote:

Why would you say that??? I have never been asked.:rolleyes: Ass-u-mptions... And both of my shoes are on the correct feet. :D

Because you said:

TheMercenary;327112 wrote:

I would agree with you. If I weren't that lucky I guess we would come up with another plan or be on the dole like others not so lucky.
...

Spexxvet;327152 wrote:

Because you said:

Is there a point to be made here?? :worried: :D

Happy Monkey;327149 wrote:

You were asked just now, and you said that you'd change your position if you were in the other situation.

No I have not changed my position. What I said was that I would use the system currently in place.

As are the people currently using the system. And they're welcome to it.

Happy Monkey;327194 wrote:

As are the people currently using the system. And they're welcome to it.

Absolutely, that was not the point of the discussion.

So taking your wealth and redistributing it to them is the answer?

Happy Monkey;327224 wrote:

So taking your wealth and redistributing it to them is the answer?

No. Taking more of my wealth than they already take is not the answer. The discussion is about plans to institute a program similar to NHS or a Canadian model. It is about diverting and increasing taxes to establish a free health care for all system.

How about diverting what is currently given out in Corporate welfare and tax breaks for the very wealthy?

DanaC;327254 wrote:

How about diverting what is currently given out in Corporate welfare and tax breaks for the very wealthy?

Selectively, I would agree with some realignment. What is wealthy?
When does my income become one of the wealthy?
100k, 200k, 300k, 400k, 500k, 600k, 700k?

I support a system of flat tax or Fair Tax.

When does the roll back of corprate tax breaks drive more industry out of the US and further cripple our economy? If very large corporations close more factories and industry and thousands more lose jobs and go on the dole would it still have been worth it to you to roll back those tax breaks?