Well, LinkC is right. But more specific to what you said... there's a big difference between questioning whether wording in legislation will lead to unintended consequences (such as "death" panels) and accusing someone of wanting poor people to die. I never heard anyone claim they wanted to have death panels and I never heard anyone accuse someone of saying they wanted death panels. I only heard people bringing forward the wording in the legislation that had potential to lead to that. The unintended consequences of virtually every piece of legislation that comes around (no matter who's writing the thing) are important to try to weed out but most of the time no one tries to anticipate.DreamStalker wrote:Uhhhh ... so what does it imply about those who advocate a single-payer insurance system being accused of advocating death panels for grandma?frazzled-snoozer wrote:I'm gonna have to see that with my own two eyes. I watch him quite frequently and have never heard him say anything like that. Besides, his favorite charity is a cancer hospital that treats anyone, whether they can pay or not. And they don't just treat them... they treat them exceptionally well. The idea that anyone wants to see disadvantaged people go without care is just bogus. People are charitable. To imply that those that advocate for free market solutions are advocating for poor people to die because they're just collateral damage is offensive and lends no substance to the debate.fidelfs wrote:He said that, I normally watch his show because I like some of his thoughts not all of them, just some. I was disgusted when he explained how is acceptable in capitalism to have some deaths from people that cannot afford health insurance. While big insurance and pharma keep having big profit due to the people than can afford them. He said if poor people cannot go to a Hospital for let's say because they got cancer, then that's ok, this way the system won't be overwhelm and keep functioning in optimal way. He said that after years of research, big pharma will find a cure and will be used more widely and the price will go down and then those poor people will able to afford it. He said let the free market work and then we can cure cancer, Alzheimer, etc, a few death are acceptable.....fidelfs wrote:We cannot have health to be based in profit. Many people will die. Well, for Mr. Glen Beck says that in capitalism is acceptable the death of people than cannot pay for the medication. Ummmm.... he never said anything like that!
My point is that it is the system we have now. We cannot have it anymore, don't ask what should we have, because I don't know.
There are some type of cancer that is almost certain death, i.e. pancreatic cancer so, Is that enough the reason to deny poor help, just because they most certainly died? Not, in my book.
Does that lend substance to the debate? What about offensive?
Like I said before, I don't demonize those that want a single-payer system. They want it for purely benevolent reasons. I'd like to think that those people would also not demonize those of us that want an improved market-driven solution. We're not just a bunch of heartless rich people. I, for one, am in the lower class (the group that most of the uninsured people are part of). We pay a lot to insure our family and into our medical savings account. We pay it before we buy a better car, a house, cable, vacations, big tv's, eating out, or any of the number of luxuries available. I value it as much as food in our priorities (something my grandma instilled in me). I'd like to see everyone in our boat have something they can afford to buy available to them. That's the change I want to see. I don't want someone to have to sacrifice an essential item to buy medical insurance. They don't have to dedicate as much to it as we do (about 15% of our income). They should get to choose and be able to afford it. But I want to still have the excellent care I have. When I was sick last year I was in touch with people all over the world with my same condition. It was evident to everyone that I had the best treatment. I was seen within days by the specialist. They had to wait months and missed out on the early treatments that benefited me so much. Their disabilities were extended sometimes by years due to this delay. It was considered a low-priority condition because it wasn't going to kill us... (just made us miserable enough to wish we were dead! )
But, this is neither here nor there.... what we're getting is not a single-payer system and I don't believe it will be a better market-driven system. I think it will be etremely cumbersome with lots of unintended consequences.
