 | | Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas
|
| | | (...) That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't have to pay the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess
|
| | | | (...) seen (...) tell (...) So those without the means to pay the bills suffer? Not very humanitarian. (...) -Duane (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | (...) That's still not the business of the federal gov't. They are there to provide a framework which protects our liberties - not to dole out compassion. That argument doesn't hold water anyway, anyone can go to the emergency room regardless of (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) a (...) I agree, but to nitpick, that service isn't done out of the goodness of the hospital's collective heart; it's subsidized. Dave! (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | | (...) Right, but I just meant that people will be treated when needed. Besides, federal medical care makes HMO's look divine. Bill (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Today it is, because bad money (gov't charity) has driven out good (private charity). It used to be a pure charity decision, the hospital (if for profit) took a deliberate margin hit, or raised the money by charity drives. (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess
|
| | | | (...) So who picks up the tab? Would I as an uninsured person who walked into an emergency room, get the treatment that I needed if it weren't subsidized? I doubt it. I would get the amount of care where the hospital knew it would be able to recoup (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | (...) But this is not a socialist country. It's not right for the gov't to take my money and force me to make charitable contributions as it sees fit. This is mandatory benevolence and as such ceases to be so. Beides, the gov't is so inefficient (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | (...) It's interesting that the biggest union in the country is the Union of Federal Workers. It gives a good hint of why government never gets smaller. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I think you need to recheck things a bit. The US has a number of Socialist features. 'Socialist' isn't a black-and-white, yes-or-no thing. Steve (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand Socialism —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | Steve, (...) Well, maybe what Bill is saying that this county wasn't started out socialistic, but it seems to be getting there. Socialism is a black and white definition, however. Any Political Science / Government class will tell you. Scott S. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) A country can have socialist features and still not be Socialist. It's sort of like "Space" vs. "space"...capital-S has a very specific meaning, while small-s is more malleable. Semantics...with a small s. ;) <dredge...dredge...> best LFB (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) And that would mean that 'Socialist' is just a descriptive label, without much specific meaning. Sort of like calling the leader of a country 'President' doesn't mean the country is a Democracy based on inalienable human-rights and personal (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Well plowed ground alert. (...) You do. Or you should. It's not my problem if you didn't manage your affairs correctly. Maybe I'll decide to help, but it should be my decision. Medical care is a good, that is, a form of property. There are no rights (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess
|
| | | | (...) I guess I was out smelling the roses when the ground was plowed. :-) (...) Ouch! With that one sentence you hit a nerve. You have a point that I'll have to ponder some more. If I can come to a conclusion anytime soon, I'll get back to you. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
