Debate discussion

77 views
The Government > Socialized Health Care

Comments Showing 1-50 of 538 (538 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

message 1: by Liz (last edited Mar 29, 2009 06:00AM) (new)

Liz Should we have socialized health care in the United States? Or anywhere for that matter? Is it positive or negative on our culture?


message 2: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments Hmm, i dont really understand what that is, but i dont like the name!!!


message 3: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Positive.


message 4: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Isn't socialized health care where everyone has health care and insurance doesn't matter? I don't know, I've only heard about it from Michael Moore, and he's kinda biased...lol.


message 5: by Liz (new)

Liz Socialized health care is where health care is a right and paid for by the government, not out of pocket.

I think it is a bad idea because then money will no longer be an incentive. A cancer patient cannot throw extra money at a hospital to get himself treated sooner, which throws all the incentives around. Just providing things for people makes less of an incentive for them to work harder which makes for a lazy society where the government is just throwing money at people for them doing nothing. People should work for their standard of living.


message 6: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Some people can't. My grandparents are smart, but they got their high school and college diploma in Russia, and for some reason it didn't go through in America. Forcing them to work as janitors. And I like socialized health care. People who can't afford it should be able to live, no matter their income. I'm surprised Liz. I though you would be pro-socialized health care, since you like life and what not.


message 7: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments But isn't it in Canada, and everyone there likes it?


message 8: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Yeah, that's correct.


message 9: by Liz (new)

Liz Maria wrote: "Some people can't. My grandparents are smart, but they got their high school and college diploma in Russia, and for some reason it didn't go through in America. Forcing them to work as janitors. An..."

Since I like life and whatnot? Excuse me? I'm not saying I like killing, this is in no way killing.


message 10: by Liz (new)

Liz Riley wrote: "But isn't it in Canada, and everyone there likes it?"

Everyone likes it? Wow...I've heard different things...


message 11: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments In a sense, yes it is. It's completely idiotic to say that denying someone who does not get health care from there job will not die even if they get a fatal disease and cannot afford to medicate themselves.


message 12: by Liz (new)

Liz Oh, my beliefs are idiotic now are they?

I'm not saying they should be denied hospital treatment if they are dying. I'm saying, if you provide things for free to the people, the incentives and motivations in society drastically change for the worse.


message 13: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Well do you think that they will survive without medical treatment? If so, than yes, you're belief in that is quite idiotic.

Oh? So you are just going to ignore England because your hypothesis is different?


message 14: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Hey! Guys, calm down. Re read your comments. Now tell me what you were going to say.


message 15: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments yeash seriously...


message 16: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments I just reread it. I think it's fine.


message 17: by Jayda (new)

Jayda I think that maybe healthcare's prices should be lowered, but honestly, I don't want people all over America running to the doctor because they have the sniffles. Everyone but my dad (including me) in my immediate family has a disease that is likely life-threatening. I don't want to be pushed to the back of the line when I need to get in with the doctor now. And for those who cannot afford healthcare, if they need to get to a doctor than go to an immediate care center, or the emergency room. And there are ways to pay medical bills. It may take a long time, but there's always a way. I think that the people who need healthcare (in other words, people who have to go the doctor a lot, as my family does) should have healthcare. But nationalizing healthcare, or making it universal, would be the wrong thing to do. Look at Canada. You can NEVER get in with the doctors there and they have nationlized healthcare. And if we have problems now I think that we shouldn't add even more to the mix.

My attitude comes from years of medical issues and going to doctors and having to wait for appointments, even now. With the ability to go to a doctor for free, no matter who you are or what's actually going on, the time is going to be much worse. I'd rather be able to get in on the time we have now (if not better) and be able to deal with the issues that are existant than have someone who doesn't have any issues think that they really so and clogging up the system. I understand that there are people out there who need healthcare. But as I said before, you can get healthcare depending on your health situation, easily. With cancer patients you can get Medicaid almost instantly. If they really think that they need to be tested than they can go to the doctor, be tested, and when something is found insurance/healthcare can take up the bills from there. It's not that complex, honestly. And I think that my attitude would be the same as anyone who has severe medical issues as my family and I do.


message 18: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) Maria wrote: "In a sense, yes it is. It's completely idiotic to say that denying someone who does not get health care from there job will not die even if they get a fatal disease and cannot afford to medicate th..."

and so since they cant afford it everybody else should pay for them out of there taxes?




message 19: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments The taxes aren't going to be that much increased, if you think about it. Just like maybe $1000+ a year. I mean think about it, we are already paying a lot for health care than paying a little more of our taxes and eliminating out health care cost will save us money.


message 20: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) it wont save us much money we will get worse healthcare and it will come out of our taxes


message 21: by Liz (new)

Liz Maria wrote: "The taxes aren't going to be that much increased, if you think about it. Just like maybe $1000+ a year. I mean think about it, we are already paying a lot for health care than paying a little more ..."

Citation, please? For some people the taxes are being raised SIGNIFICANTLY, just because Obama deems them "rich".




message 22: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments To be honest the $1000+ was an educated guess. But the American household will save about $2,500 a year. And what do you mean significantly. Like I said, Obama will not increase over 39%. He said so in his speech. And they are rich. Anybody with 250,000+ a year is rich.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/0...


message 23: by Jayda (last edited Apr 14, 2009 08:51AM) (new)

Jayda More taxes will not get us out of debt, and taxes on universal healthcare will only make the healthcare worse.

"He said so in his speech."

You realize that he's already adding more and more taxes to things, going back on his word? He added more taxes to cigarettes per box, he's added taxes on cell phone bills, he's raised taxes on beer. There's plenty more, but he's obviously showing signs of raising taxes even more, which makes me think that he was lying when he was talking about taxes, which also makes me think that he'll raise the rich's taxes over 39%. And I'm sure that that's partially because he thinks we'll get out of the bad economy by taxing. But we learned from Russia that a flat tax will help us, not raising taxes.

"And they are rich. Anybody with 250,000+ a year is rich."

In your eyes. And if Obama raises taxes on them they'll be paying taxes like crazy and might end up losing their houses, their cars, think like that because they're paying all of these ugly taxes for things that we don't need.

Our country is something like $60 trillion in debt. Our government has an out of control spending problem and they think that raising taxes will help us. But it won't.


message 24: by Liz (new)

Liz Maria wrote: "To be honest the $1000+ was an educated guess. But the American household will save about $2,500 a year. And what do you mean significantly. Like I said, Obama will not increase over 39%. He said s..."

So if somebody happens to have worked hard all through life and dedicated heart and soul to education and work so they end up making 250K/year should be penalized for their effort in the form of having to pay for those who didn't necessarily work as hard and do as well in the financial world? Hmmm...that seems unfair...


message 25: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments And if someone goes through life working very hard and put time and effort into their education but without connections and good luck they end up making less than 250K/year and has trouble making payments and is forced to live with very little luxury like most of America it's fair?


message 26: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Just because you don't make $250,000 it doesn't mean that you live in the dirt. My family makes much less than that and we live very well. Not everyone struggles who is underneath Obama's bar for the rich, only you're making it out that people who are below that are struggling terribly. One of the reasons we struggle is because of taxes. Flat taxes would help that out plenty. But our government is spending money like crazy and if they stopped that than our economy would also begin to heal, along with the taxes becoming flat instead of fair. But you can live well on a small amount of money, you just can't buy what you can't afford or don't need.


message 27: by Chandani (new)

Chandani  (milkduds920) | 6408 comments Socialized healthcare is cool i guesss


message 28: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) but those who want better health care cant get it even if they have the #


message 29: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) i mean moiney


message 30: by Jayda (new)

Jayda That's not necessarily true. Those who have the money can get healthcare. And depending on where your parents work you can get it for free.


message 31: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments My dad makes $40,000 a year, and we do pretty well. But I mean, if they're making over $250,000, they can spare a bit of tax. Or maybe just a flat rate, but not what Bush was doing. (I have an idea! I'll cut taxes for the rich! And everyone was so scared of Cheney shooting them they agreed!)


message 32: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Jayda wrote: "Just because you don't make $250,000 it doesn't mean that you live in the dirt. My family makes much less than that and we live very well. Not everyone struggles who is underneath Obama's bar for t..."

Credit is a problem, I agree. And I'm not saying we live in the dirt but we obviously don't live like the people with 2.5K+. Luxuries are difficult to get when you are under that mark.


message 33: by Jayda (new)

Jayda What if you make $200,000? I'm pretty sure that you can afford luxuries when you make that much. But despite that, luxuries are a luxury only if you can afford them. If you can't afford them then, honestly, too bad. It's not a necessity like clothes and food and shelter are necessities. You should only get luxuries if you can afford them, and if you can't you shouldn't burden the "rich" with getting them for you.


message 34: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Yes, you can afford luxuries, but a lot of people don't make that much, even if they are under the rich range. Would you seriously like to go through life with no luxuries Jayda? No computer? No nice clothes? No electronics? Medicine? Art supplies? Camp? Etc...?


message 35: by Jayda (new)

Jayda I'd like to point out that a lot of people (I'm not saying everyone, but a great amount of people) that are on government assistance are on it so that they can afford nice things and get housing or food, that sort of thing, for free. I know so many people who go on government assistance that buy the luxuries because they can afford those and would rather buy those than actual necessities.

And if it came down to it, I would just be glad to have a roof over my head and food in my stomach. Camp, electronics, computer, art supplies, etcetera, those are all things that aren't needed. And unless you can afford them I recommend not buying them. And it's not as if (for a majority of people, I would think) you'd go through life without ever experiencing those things. But unless you can afford them you don't need to buy them. They're nice to have, but not needed in the least, especially when important things such as clothes and food and a rood over your head are needed.


message 36: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Those people are bad. But you can't blame other working families for their being bad. Sure it sucks, and as I've pointed out before, I disagree with it.

Hahaha, Jayda I believe you are a cynic. The old on eof course. The type that Diogenes was. Unfortunately, most people aren't such as me. Not that you need money to be happy, but it sure as hell is nice to have. Those things bring joy to us. Bring experiences, let us grow. For instance, with out books I would be stupider, same goes for computer. Without camp I would have less experiences. Without art supplies it would be harder to express myself. etc...


message 37: by Jayda (new)

Jayda And working families who need support should be allowed to get it. But we need more monitoring on people with government assistance so that our tax money isn't being wasted even more than it already is.

xD Maybe I am? Anyway, yes, I love my things, I love my computer and camp and books. But without those things you find creative ways to learn or express yourself. You can have experiences, they would just be different compared to the ones you would have at camp. You may be missing out on some things without luxuries if you can't afford them, but you're not missing out on a lot of things that you can't experience without those objects.

I love money and objects, as well, but I try to make it so that of I were to lose everything I could let it go. It would suck, but we'd make it. It's not the end of the world if I don't have a computer or an Ipod.


message 38: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments I believe that every small step dramatically changes your life.

You're right, it would majorly suck. So then let's keep it. This isn't life or death here, Jayda. No one is going to go bankrupt because of the higher taxes.


message 39: by Jayda (new)

Jayda You don't know that no one will go bankrupt because of higher taxes. Trust me - people are already struggling to pay their taxes, so if the taxes just get higher how do you expect everyone to pay for the necessities? It's going to get harder and harder and than hardly anyone will be able to afford what luxuries we already have.


message 40: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments The rich? Trouble with money? Obama is not raising taxes on people struggling to pay their taxes, he is raising taxes on people who can afford higher taxes.


message 41: by Liz (new)

Liz Maria wrote: "The rich? Trouble with money? Obama is not raising taxes on people struggling to pay their taxes, he is raising taxes on people who can afford higher taxes. "

No, Obama is raising taxes on the so-called "rich" but that doesn't mean they live in the happy lap of luxury with no financial concern in the world. Taxes hurt, and I have issues with the idea of taxing the rich more than others. I know some people who went from very poor families, worked 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, graduated with loans from prestigious college and grad schools, and became the definition of upward mobility, extremely wealthy, all from hard work.


message 42: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments Good for them, but not all people have that type of effort. And I'm not saying that's peachy but I'm saying that you can't hope that all people will become like that. It's not going to happen. And a lot of people don't have that in them, and I don't blame them. Can you? Would you be able to do that. But really, bravo for that person.

And I'm aware that they don't have a peachy life, but they sure as hell have a much better life than the people making under 2.5K.


message 43: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Maria wrote: "The rich? Trouble with money? Obama is not raising taxes on people struggling to pay their taxes, he is raising taxes on people who can afford higher taxes. "


What do you think raising taxes on beer and cigarettes and cell phones is doing? Raising taxes on people who can't afford higher taxes. We're having a hard enough time as it is, raising taxes will only make things worse.

"... but they sure as hell have a much better life than the people making under 2.5K."

You're putting everyone that makes 2.5K into one group and saying this is how they live. Not everyone that makes 2.5K has a much better life than people who makes less. I'm sure that some of them have debt or loans to pay off, I'm sure that some of them bought more than they could afford. Not everyone with Obama's definition of rich has a wonderful, fantastic, money filled life. I think the definition should be $500,000, but that's just me. But even if it were that taxes shouldn't be raised higher than others. They earned the money, the shouldn't forced to give charity, they should be asked.


message 44: by Liz (new)

Liz I think you mean 250K, because that would be 250,000.



message 45: by Liz (new)

Liz Maria wrote: "Good for them, but not all people have that type of effort. And I'm not saying that's peachy but I'm saying that you can't hope that all people will become like that. It's not going to happen. And ..."

I know not all people will work that hard, but I'm saying that they are capable. Almost everyone is technically capable of making that much money, so I don't want to hear their sob stories about getting pregnant at 15, dropping out of high school, being kicked out of their homes, and being forced to work at Wal Mart for the rest of their lives. They control their destiny and can do whatever they want, but why should the people who work insanely hard to achieve great things be penalized?


message 46: by Liz (new)

Liz Besides, if the rich aren't forced to pay a bunch of money in taxes, they can (and will, to some extent) put that excess money into charities or even back into the economy, which benefits everyone. Every time a person buys something, people somewhere else get payed. So your purchase helps factory workers in China. Its all part of the economy.


message 47: by Sarah jean (new)

Sarah jean  blank (Sarahjean) those whjo work hard to get money, are forced to give it away.

i think thats stupid.


message 48: by The New Maria (new)

The New Maria (emeraldmaria) | 1950 comments I'll take you're posts one on one later, I don't have that much time now.


message 49: by Riley (new)

Riley (booksarecool) | 2246 comments Hey? Did anyone-ANYONE read my post?!

Let me rephrase this.

My dad went through high school. He went for 3 years at college, then dropped out to be in the military. He learned collaborating and all about electronics in the military. He was there for seven years of my life.

So that's seven years of experience. He makes $40,000 a year.

I'm not complaining, but my dad works hard too. He went through school. He works Sundays, and Christmas, and Easter.

So, I ask you, why can't someone making $210,000 more than him, no matter how hard they worked, give up a bit of money?


message 50: by Jayda (new)

Jayda Military families get a healthcare called Tri-Care.
So technically your family should have healthcare for free.


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
back to top