Consensus emerging on universal healthcare - but single payer is off the table

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If there's universal healthcare, we should exclude everyone over 70. We should decide, as a nation, that people over 70 aren't worth saving.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah that line of thoughtlessness is rather petty and silly isn't it?

yes. i find it offensive. i was tempted to press the report button.

also, with regard to the walmart thing...

Kimberly Cribbs, who witnessed the stampede, said shoppers were acting like "savages."

"When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling `I've been on line since yesterday morning,'" she said. "They kept shopping."

clearly many people thought he was in the way of a deal or he wouldn't have been crushed to death. this is comparable to insurance companies and their greed.

Pretty much.

I can only think back to the days I worked retail and how I used crowd control to ensure people wouldn't stampede on a Black Friday. Not easy to do when people can only think of themselves above others' safety.

[mawilson 2,133]

If there's universal healthcare, we should exclude everyone over 70. We should decide, as a nation, that people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Or at least that poor people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Those who have accomplished something and have a nice retirement account can pay for it themselves.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If there's universal healthcare, we should exclude everyone over 70. We should decide, as a nation, that people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Or at least that poor people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Those who have accomplished something and have a nice retirement account can pay for it themselves.

I agree. If there's anything more pathetic than a poor person, it's an old poor person.

Note to self: Deny saying this when you're poor.

[Amby 490]

If there's universal healthcare, we should exclude everyone over 70. We should decide, as a nation, that people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Or at least that poor people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Those who have accomplished something and have a nice retirement account can pay for it themselves.

I agree. If there's anything more pathetic than a poor person, it's an old poor person.

Note to self: Deny saying this when you're poor.

Poor people in general piss me off. I don't mind the ones that are trying to make their life better but the ones who just think they are entitled to all of this free sh*t really piss me off. They deserve to die miserable and poor without free healthcare.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Amby

[rocks 494]

Debt isn't "paid back", only serviced. Think of it as an interest-only mortgage with a term of 'forever'.

The ultimate ponzi scheme!

so why not make this un-repayable debt about saving american lives than some un-winnable wars? it's pretty simple, isn't it? or do you think i am making this too complicated for people?

These "wars we are losing" don't last forever, therefore the amount of borrowed money is limited.

the amount of money that has been used on the wars is vast, you know that as well as i do. the amount of taxes required to implement healthcare for everyone would never be as high as that.

That's just not true.

In 2007, total national health spending was $2.3 TRILLION.

Six years in (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008), the total cost of the Iraq war comes to roughly $600 billion.

the amount spent on national health now is irrelevant. how much more would be required to provide basic care for everyone?

also, i know we have had this conversation before but do you think that human life is less important than corporate greed? do you think people should die because they can't afford health insurance?

[rocks 494]

If there's universal healthcare, we should exclude everyone over 70. We should decide, as a nation, that people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Or at least that poor people over 70 aren't worth saving.

Those who have accomplished something and have a nice retirement account can pay for it themselves.

I agree. If there's anything more pathetic than a poor person, it's an old poor person.

Note to self: Deny saying this when you're poor.

Poor people in general piss me off. I don't mind the ones that are trying to make their life better but the ones who just think they are entitled to all of this free sh*t really piss me off. They deserve to die miserable and poor without free healthcare.

those people ruin it for everyone else. my father-in-law died because he couldn't afford health care. he worked hard all of his life and got sick and couldn't work anymore so couldn't afford it. i'm sure it happens to many more people than we care to imagine.

[Amby 490]

Debt isn't "paid back", only serviced. Think of it as an interest-only mortgage with a term of 'forever'.

The ultimate ponzi scheme!

so why not make this un-repayable debt about saving american lives than some un-winnable wars? it's pretty simple, isn't it? or do you think i am making this too complicated for people?

These "wars we are losing" don't last forever, therefore the amount of borrowed money is limited.

the amount of money that has been used on the wars is vast, you know that as well as i do. the amount of taxes required to implement healthcare for everyone would never be as high as that.

That's just not true.

In 2007, total national health spending was $2.3 TRILLION.

Six years in (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008), the total cost of the Iraq war comes to roughly $600 billion.

the amount spent on national health now is irrelevant. how much more would be required to provide basic care for everyone?

also, i know we have had this conversation before but do you think that human life is less important than corporate greed? do you think people should die because they can't afford health insurance?

I do...if they're doing nothing to contribute to the world then we won't miss them.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Poor people in general piss me off.

i was actually kidding.... my family on my dads side isnt that far removed from rural poverty...

[rocks 494]

Debt isn't "paid back", only serviced. Think of it as an interest-only mortgage with a term of 'forever'.

The ultimate ponzi scheme!

so why not make this un-repayable debt about saving american lives than some un-winnable wars? it's pretty simple, isn't it? or do you think i am making this too complicated for people?

These "wars we are losing" don't last forever, therefore the amount of borrowed money is limited.

the amount of money that has been used on the wars is vast, you know that as well as i do. the amount of taxes required to implement healthcare for everyone would never be as high as that.

That's just not true.

In 2007, total national health spending was $2.3 TRILLION.

Six years in (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008), the total cost of the Iraq war comes to roughly $600 billion.

the amount spent on national health now is irrelevant. how much more would be required to provide basic care for everyone?

also, i know we have had this conversation before but do you think that human life is less important than corporate greed? do you think people should die because they can't afford health insurance?

I do...if they're doing nothing to contribute to the world then we won't miss them.

...

not funny.

[Amby 490]

Debt isn't "paid back", only serviced. Think of it as an interest-only mortgage with a term of 'forever'.

The ultimate ponzi scheme!

so why not make this un-repayable debt about saving american lives than some un-winnable wars? it's pretty simple, isn't it? or do you think i am making this too complicated for people?

These "wars we are losing" don't last forever, therefore the amount of borrowed money is limited.

the amount of money that has been used on the wars is vast, you know that as well as i do. the amount of taxes required to implement healthcare for everyone would never be as high as that.

That's just not true.

In 2007, total national health spending was $2.3 TRILLION.

Six years in (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008), the total cost of the Iraq war comes to roughly $600 billion.

the amount spent on national health now is irrelevant. how much more would be required to provide basic care for everyone?

also, i know we have had this conversation before but do you think that human life is less important than corporate greed? do you think people should die because they can't afford health insurance?

I do...if they're doing nothing to contribute to the world then we won't miss them.

...

not funny.

I wasn't being funny. That's really how I feel.

[mawilson 2,133]

That's just not true.

In 2007, total national health spending was $2.3 TRILLION.

Six years in (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008), the total cost of the Iraq war comes to roughly $600 billion.

the amount spent on national health now is irrelevant. how much more would be required to provide basic care for everyone?

Do the maths.

There are 45 million uninsured Americans - 15% of the population.

15% of $2.3 trillion is $345 billion per year.

Sorry - the number is $405 billion ( $2.3 trillion * 15 / 85 )

That's how much money will be needed.

also, i know we have had this conversation before but do you think that human life is less important than corporate greed? do you think people should die because they can't afford health insurance?

No, I don't think human life is less important than corporate greed.

Edited December 2, 2008 by mawilson

[HAL 9000 96]

Debt isn't "paid back", only serviced. Think of it as an interest-only mortgage with a term of 'forever'.

The ultimate ponzi scheme!

so why not make this un-repayable debt about saving american lives than some un-winnable wars? it's pretty simple, isn't it? or do you think i am making this too complicated for people?

These "wars we are losing" don't last forever, therefore the amount of borrowed money is limited.

the amount of money that has been used on the wars is vast, you know that as well as i do. the amount of taxes required to implement healthcare for everyone would never be as high as that.

That's just not true.

In 2007, total national health spending was $2.3 TRILLION.

Six years in (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008), the total cost of the Iraq war comes to roughly $600 billion.

the amount spent on national health now is irrelevant. how much more would be required to provide basic care for everyone?

also, i know we have had this conversation before but do you think that human life is less important than corporate greed? do you think people should die because they can't afford health insurance?

I do...if they're doing nothing to contribute to the world then we won't miss them.

Under the same logic people that act like leeches to the rest of the world should also be terminated.

2.3 TRILLION-

Unless costs are reduced.

[rocks 494]

That's just not true.

In 2007, total national health spending was $2.3 TRILLION.

Six years in (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008), the total cost of the Iraq war comes to roughly $600 billion.

the amount spent on national health now is irrelevant. how much more would be required to provide basic care for everyone?

Do the maths.

There are 45 million uninsured Americans - 15% of the population.

15% of $2.3 trillion is $345 billion per year.

That's how much money will be needed.

that is still less than the amount spent on the war. just think, we could have almost two years of everyone being insured!

i know these figures aren't realistically comparable, but as you said health is more important than greed so surely this should be more important?

[mawilson 2,133]

that is still less than the amount spent on the war. just think, we could have almost two years of everyone being insured!

Well sure - it'll work for two years. Then what?