(04-19-2013 11:50 PM)TigerSeth Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 11:40 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Yup because poor people who cannot afford healthcare are always lazy. 100% of all jobs offer health care or pay enough to allow you to get your own. And only 'hard working conservatives' pay taxes and support the weak.



The idea that if you work hard enough you can always achieve the basic necessities is truly a false one. Some people are trapped by circumstance. That is reality.

True...but a lot of people game the system and have an entitlement mentality these days. As someone who busts his ass working swing shift to support myself and my daughter...it frustrates me. I'm through with my political rant. :-)

There is always the exception to every rule. And because there are people gaming the system its easy to condemn those who do not.

Every human deserves the right to free health care.

(04-19-2013 11:56 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Its called growing up in the Calliope projects where every person you know is a drug addict or from prison or the public school system is worthless or gun shots are too normal to cause PTSD and the only job you know is working at Popeyes a block from your house and the smartest person you know just moved away.

*insert dismal scenario here*

Just another symptom of a much, much larger problem IMO. The answer isn't doing things for these people. Chances are they live in public housing and are already getting some other type of gov't help.

Doesn't seem to be helping a whole lot does it?

So let them die or be homeless and then die. Lets just remove all govt assistance entirely and let them fend for themselves. cool beans that will work. no revolution from the hungry

(04-20-2013 12:35 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  So let them die or be homeless and then die. Lets just remove all govt assistance entirely and let them fend for themselves. cool beans that will work. no revolution from the hungry

Why not? If they don't care about taking care of themselves why should I. It shouldn't be my problem. Sounds harsh??? Maybe but I also sponsor a child who is in a much worse situation in a poverty stricken area of Africa. They are legitimately what I'd call the helpless poor who desperately NEED help.

Like I said, I don't feel much sympathy for folks living like this in America. Sorry. It's not an apples to apples situation. I'd be cool with helping the poor children, disabled and elderly in America but as far as able bodied people who could work? Screw 'em. They need to stop reproducing.

I still can't find where in the Constitution it says we are entitled to free health care.

(04-20-2013 09:21 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I still can't find where in the Constitution it says we are entitled to free health care.

Obama already treats the constitution like a piece of toilet paper....I'm sure he will write it in with a crayon.

Right to life

(04-21-2013 11:29 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Right to life

You know, I don't really want to get into a political discussion here, and I'm not necessarily against free universal health care (although whether or not we will achieve that with the current Obamacare bill is a matter for another debate), but citing the right to life isn't really making a warranted claim for free universal health care.

Even if you interpret "right to life" as that the government must, at its expense, make every reasonable attempt to save a person's life, it does not logically extend to full universal health care. Instead, it would imply that the government should pay for all medical expenses incurred after some doctor determines that a patient's life is in jeopardy, which wouldn't cover all doctor's visits for things like run of the mill ear infections / colds /etc. (things that, for most people, are not life threatening but we go to our doctors anyway to lessen discomfort).

Like I said, I don't want to get into a political discussion and I'm not saying that I'm for or against Obamacare or UHC in general. Therefore, I ask that you please evaluate this post based upon its contents - a discussion of why, IMO, "right to life" does not cover all healthcare-related expenditures.

I won't fight you on that line only guarenteeing necessity healthcare. I think that is a very fair and good argument. The counter would be that it is fiscally more responsible for our government to then practicie preventitive medicine than wait for patients to be near terminal before stepping in. Vastly cheaper and would require less monies in taxation. Winwin