Because that's how the world works. People live, then they die. Those that are the fittest survive the longest, those that aren't, die off. Not all people get a fair shake. Life's not fair.

 

Different philosophies, I'm not a social darwinist. It's time they get a fair shake IMO.

Different philosophies, I'm not a social darwinist. It's time they get a fair shake IMO.

 

So why should people who don't share your philosophy be forced to adopt it? Those that feel the way you do, more power to ya if you want to pay for others. Those that don't, shouldn't have to.

So why should people who don't share your philosophy be forced to adopt it? Those that feel the way you do, more power to ya if you want to pay for others. Those that don't, shouldn't have to.

 

Representive Republic, if conservatives win and repeal it I'll still be right here watching people die while insurance executives get mulit million dollar bonuses.

If there are not enough doctors or nurses or hospitals to care for everyone is health care still a 'right'?

 

No other 'right' comes with a bill....

World Health Organization rankings.

 

Just exactly what are they ranking?

If there are not enough doctors or nurses or hospitals to care for everyone is health care still a 'right'?

 

No other 'right' comes with a bill....

 

I don't think this one should either but that is a little too socialist for this country. France spends less than us per capita and has the worlds top rated health care. No bills for the patients.

Just exactly what are they ranking?

 

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

 

You too can google.

Please conservatives, keep it up with this handout crap and see how many elections you win. The real health care you speak of had us ranked 37th in the world even though our per capita spending is #1, now with the AHCA we can spend less and get better care.

 

Fantasy land.

I just feel that as a civilized society that things work better if we pay for certain things collectively. Health care is one of those things. The right to live or die shouldn't be determined by what job you have or what family you were born into. Why do you feel it is okay for a child to die because thier parents have hit thier insurance limit or a hard working guy who a few months after being laid off finds out he has cancer?

 

Collectivism can only work if 100% of the people contribute to the pool.

 

You can't have 53% contributing virtually all and 47% taking virtually all.

 

That is not collectivism. That is wealth redistribution.

 

The producers become enslaved to the takers.

So you're saying under Obamacare, a homeless person gets pneumonia (sp?) and goes to the clinic for care, they'll be forced to pay for coverage or be denied treatment? I call bull.

 

I am saying you and I are paying for that person's health care now, and yes, we will still be paying for it under Obamacare through premiums and/or taxes. However, there are a lot of people that don't have health insurance that will have to either get it or pay into the system. That extra money going into the system is going to eventually reduce cost for those of us who have been paying all along.

I am saying you and I are paying for that person's health care now, and yes, we will still be paying for it under Obamacare through premiums and/or taxes. However, there are a lot of people that don't have health insurance that will have to either get it or pay into the system. That extra money going into the system is going to eventually reduce cost for those of us who have been paying all along.

 

Right so there are people getting freebies, and I'm saying a) if you don't have money to pay for your own coverage, you shouldn't be treated, and b) (most importantly) the government has no business telling 1) people or 2) businesses what they have to buy or offer to employees.

Collectivism can only work if 100% of the people contribute to the pool.

 

You can't have 53% contributing virtually all and 47% taking virtually all.

 

That is not collectivism. That is wealth redistribution.

 

The producers become enslaved to the takers.

 

The whole maker vs taker, 47% crap has been so debunked that it's becoming birtherish to me. Very few people if any in this country pay no taxes.

The franchises are not his.

 

Its the franchise owners who can not afford the bill.

 

Can Papa Johns corporate or Applebee's corporate afford ACA? Maybe. Can the much smaller franchises that are on much smaller margins and much more highly leveraged? Less likely. The 2 million pizzas are coming from Papa, not the franchise owners.

 

So they will cut everyone's hours to 27.9 and not provide them insurance. Then the employees will have to buy the insurance from the state exchanges - assuming their state offers an exchange and pay for it with their 27 hour a week pay. Vs. having some moderate insurance and making 40 or more hours of pay in a week. If their state has no exchange - and many will not it looks like they get the penal...oops...sorry...tax (according to the supreme court).

 

So the employees get less hours, no insurance at all and they have to pay an extra tax the following year.

 

And those employees will immediately begin looking for a new job and get away from Papa John's as fast as they can. Good luck hiring the people you need to run the place Papa.

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

 

You too can google.

 

Just curious.

 

Seems like most of those are not about the quality of health care, but are rather opinion based on what someone thinks about thier healthcare and how it's paid for.

The whole maker vs taker, 47% crap has been so debunked that it's becoming birtherish to me. Very few people if any in this country pay no taxes.

 

A very large chunk pay no income taxes.