ClumsyMonkey.net

Let me simplify this a little more:


Money does not come before human lives.

yes, but that's because you have a capitalist mind. You were raised with that idea.

i dunno

if you were raised under socialism, you might not think that.

happeninfish wrote:i would rather that then have the entire lowest class of the country have no access to life-saving aid. maybe it's just me, but i don't think it's right that your income bracket should determine whether or not you deserve to live.

If our healthcare system wasn't setup to make money, than our medicine would be inferior. We make large strides in medicine because of the fact they will be rewarded with money.

happeninfish wrote:Let me simplify this a little more:


Money does not come before human lives.

No, no it doesn't. But why would your life come before mine?

i will not post in this topic anymore because people can never handle my views on healthcare reform without yelling at me or flaming.

but i will say one thing.

assume i am a doctor. assume you need life-saving surgery that i can perform but you cannot pay my fee. i have no obligation to perform that surgery, as my time is valuable and there are people who would pay for me to perform that same surgery in the same time period.

therefore the doctor may make the moral choice to refuse to perform the surgery at no cost. it would be entirely up to him. society can not make up his mind for him and neither can the person in need of the surgery.

it's up to the surgeon. if you want people to have access to free surgery, become a surgeon and open a free practice.

CoreyRIT wrote:

happeninfish wrote:Let me simplify this a little more:


Money does not come before human lives.

No, no it doesn't. But why would your life come before mine?

that was exactly my point...


And Bethany, I think you've got it backwards, sweetheart. Doug here is an example of a capitalist, believing that people should be free to make as much money as they possibly can, whilst I am expressing socialist views wherein those of means should help balance out the difference for those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder.

So, what you're saying is that the lives of rich people are more valuable and precious to those who love them than the lives of the suffering, poverty-stricken people. You jackass.

Most employers give their employees health insurance in the United States. You do not have to be rich to get this. However if you are a high school drop out and work at McDonalds (in a non-manager) position then no you won't get health insurance. If those people were smart enough to stay in school so that they could get a "real" job then this wouldn't be an issue. Why should people who don't care about their lives in the first place be given a free ride?

happeninfish wrote:

CoreyRIT wrote:

happeninfish wrote:Let me simplify this a little more:


Money does not come before human lives.

No, no it doesn't. But why would your life come before mine?

that was exactly my point...

And my point is that if I have money and you don't, why should I put your life before my own by giving you the money I could be spending on myself?

And my point is that if I have money and you don't, why should I put your life before my own by giving you the money I could be spending on myself?

Because shes highly moral like that Corey. This is the same girl who would rather Saddam live than thousands of innocent others that will die because of his weapons if he remains in power.

Who said that he was going to use the weapons?

Bush has weapons. Is he killing the world?

What proof do you have that Saddam is going to use them? None.

He has used them against his own people before, he used them in the Iran-Iraq war, its been proved that he has sought to obtain and make more since he was banned by the UN to do so, and he continues to create and seek more today. Why would be do so against an international body like the UN unless he meant to use them?? Why would be applaud the acts of terrorists if he didn't believe in their cause?? The US has destroyed its chemical and biological weapons. Yes we still have nukes and so do 12 or so other countries. No one (until North Korea recently) has threatened to use them so we allow it. However there is a treaty against the creation of more. By the way there are 2 other topics for this conversation. This is on healthcare.

actually.. it's about taxes

see title of thread ^

lol yeah i realized that after I posted......the last page or so is health care ....so what the hell lets move on to Iraq

but we've done this before

Venom wrote:By the way there are 2 other topics for this conversation. This is on healthcare.

Uhh... you brought it up...

I didn't really bring it up....I was using her view on the Iraq crisis as an example of her personality and relating it to the healhcare discussion. You took what I said on her views and brought up an arguement on it. So in a sense yes I mentioned it and you decided to change the course of the conversation.

i agree let's keep this tax thing rolling, war is in the state of the union thread.