Why I Support Universal Healthcare Coverage

The principles that lead to this type of governing is founded in communist ideology. It is a fact. Obama has surrounded himself with marxist after marxist. That is another fact.

Because the word "associated" gets abused to tie one thing to another when it in fact does not determine cause and effect. You were wanting preciseness over the number of people attending the Tea Party in D.C. over the weekend but overlook such preciseness when it suits your purposes. This is a clear example.

Because it is clear to us that you would be just as passionate with or without this excuse and no evidence supports your claim.

You need to research this issue before speaking on it. You seem to be following the strawman the liberal media has created around this. What you have stated has nothing to do with "death panels"

You nor anyone else has not presented any facts on this.

No pause because the entire argument is disingenuous. It presents falsities as facts and makes sophomoric arguments that cannot be supported. But regardless of any problems government control can never fix it.

Here is where the real argument lies......one wants government to provide the solutions for Americans Problems the other side is no government solutions because government always makes it worse, and is not what this country was founded on. Having said that regardless of what the problem is and no matter how extensive it is conservative will always oppose government solutions. That is the root disagreement and all other debates are founded on that issue alone. We will not compromise on this even if the center of the earth is caving in. There is always a solution outside of government that maintains the very freedom form government this country was founded on.

 

It keeps being repeated frequently that hopsitals, ER's, et al, cannot refuse to treat patients without coverage, so that just 'raises the premiums for all of us that have coverage.' So in that way, is there not already 'universal healthcare?' Would the net change even be significant? And frankly, it's easy to see 45,000 dying annually because of ignorance or stubborness about seeking treatment. 'Universal coverage' will not make people smarter or more likely to change their unhealthy habits. And I don't think it will force people to get an annual or semi-annual checkup... but who knows on that one?

 

A touching story, MP. I read every word of the linked article. ($5,000.00 a month for medical insurance seems like a typo to me, btw).

You tug at the heart-strings very well with your plea, as does the rest of the left, but the comparison to the Right to Life cause and Universal Health Care is flawed. Mainly because all souls have a RIGHT to life... not a right to a LONG life, in my opinion. They have a right to PURSUE a LONG LIFE, just as everyone else does, but that shouldn't mean that everyone should foot the bill for ALL the medical costs. Abortion is murder, plain and simple, dying from lack of being able to afford a million dollar surgery is tragic, but not murder.

Even folks WITH good health insurance don't go to the doctor for every little ailment they have. (Remember deductibles and co-pays?) When we make it so easy to go to the doctor that no one has to worry about costs, then we're going to have a totally over-loaded system and folks will die because there aren't enough medical staff to go around. Then you'll yell and scream for more doctors and nurses... it won't ever end.

In the long-run, for me anyway, it comes down to the simple question, 'Is medical care a basic human right?' I say 'No. It is not a RIGHT.'

 

"The researchers examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000. They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance."

There sample size of 9,000 appears small relative to a population in excess of 350,000,000. And that would be assuming that they did not include illegal aliens.

"The American Cancer Society found that uninsured cancer patients are 1.6 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis than those with private insurance."

It is doubtfull that 1.6% is statisticly significant.

"The National Center for Policy Analysis, which backs "free-market" health care reform, calls the Harvard research flawed. The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," said John C. Goodman, the president of the NCPA in a statement."

Well, what do you know !!

Suspiciously absent from the article is the reasons why the selected anecdotes don't include the reason why these people had no insurance.. Did one or more of them simply not choose to spend their money on insurance?

All in all not a very convincing article.

 

Your conclusion that those who are against Socialized Medicine have blood on their hands is irrational. No rational person would think that the government, who cannot run the postal service, could deliver medical care to 300 million people.

 

I would think that the left would just leave Universal Health Care alone anyway as shortened lives just lead to being closer to zero-population-growth. It doesn't make any sense, does it?

When we want to control the population of a deer herd, we allow the taking of does, we don't go out and spay them. (A cruel analogy yes, but relevant as most leftists see us as animals anyway).

 

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, my friend... You're the one that brought up strawmen with your abortion fallacy. I chose to respond in kind. I have no blood on my hands.

 

In the first place, like the 47 million "ninsured americans"is a lie, so is the 45,000, and for mostly the same reasons.

Secondly, the organization that requested the "study" is a universal healthcare advocate. Polling companies always try to please the people that contract them.

Lastly, and most important, if you think 45,000 is a big number, wait till you see how many die from lack of care when "insurance" is free. The death rates for cancer victims, for instance, is much higher in countries with government run healthcare than it is in the U.S.

The reasons are simple, rationing and rationing.

 

MP, I think you don't really have any idea of what a strawman fallacy really is. Go here -----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man for a detailed explanation.

Your arguement IS a fallacy (a strawman fallacy at that) simply because you mis-represent MY stance on the matter by stating that I must, by logic, accept Universal Health because I am pro-life or else I am a hypocrite. The fallacy is that you very conveniently choose to leave out the fact that I support protecting 'INNOCENT' life. And before you start spouting off about children being helped by this health care plan, know that for the most part, they already ARE and I agree with -that- just fine.

So stop spouting rhetoric that just doesn't make sense, you're sounding a bit desperate.

 

Thanks MP. I have read this thread and believe it would be easier to teach Algebra to a Chihuahua than convince most right-wingers of the need of universal health care.

I am somewhat disappointed with President Obama and feel that he has moved much to far in trying to bring the republicans on board. Hopefully, the Progressives in Congress will at least get a bill passed that we can build on for future improvement.

 

Remember folks, M.P. has called Christ a terrorist, and likened the teaching of an eternal hell to an armed rape. Don't let this lefty troll tell you that there's blood on your hands because you are gainst commie care. It does not deserve recognition. Let him and his ilk wallow in their hatred of biblical Christians.