Quote Kerry:Quote workingman:
Lets recap so I can make sure I am understanding you correctly.
Coming from a lying hypocrite such as yourself, I doubt your 'recap' will cover all that we have discussed. Nor will it have you address how you appear to complain that 'govenment will ration'--but, then, you seem to have no problem whatsoever about letting people die on the street that cannot pay up what your for-profit industry charges. And, not only do you have no problem with that, you don't seem to see that as, itself, 'rationing'--which, when you understand that 'rationing' is 'limiting the distribution', it certainly is. I'll have a little more to say about that in a minute. By basic point here is that, since you apparently can be nothing but a lying hypocrite about all sorts of issues we've discussed--rationing, corporate personhood, the 'purity' of the for-profit initiative, etc.--I doubt you can be either honest nor complete about any 'recap' of yours. But, let's see:
You want the government to pay for everyone’s health care with no restrictions of limitations so drug addicts can get transplants. No profit for hospitals, no profit for drug makers, no profit for equipment makers, no insurance health insurance companies at all, and no suing for malpractice at all. All drugs life saving or cures are to be given away free intellectual rights no longer apply.
Well, as a follow-up on yours and camaroman's discussion, I will be willing to bet you that if those drug addicts are in prison, they can get whatever medical care they need--including transplants--paid for by the taxpayers that you say will either have to 'pay up or die'--as you claim that's not 'rationing'.
Did I say anything against suing for malpractice? My whole point on that is that a person can sue for medical malpractice whether they have paid anything or nothing. If medicine is a product like corporatists such as yourself try to suggest, would someone that paid nothing for a product from Wal-Mart be able to sue if that free product didn't work right? And, to follow more along your irrational lying hypocrisy, since that person paid nothing for that product, wouldn't that be considered stealing? So, now, that would be like someone that stole a product from Wal-Mart suing because it didn't work. Where's your 'for-profit' incentive there, dipshit? But, in case you are just that dense and not that purposely ignorant, the point of bringing up the fact that a person can sue for medical malpractice whether they pay or not goes right to issue that the application of medical care is to be seen as a right--and not a privilege--since even non-payers can sue just like they paid everything. Do you see that point? Or, are you just that fucking stupid--and that much of a lying hypocrite--that you can't even see that you are contradicting yourself?
So, since you are adding medical malpractice lawsuits and, therefore, by such an inclusion, giving people the right to sue for medical malpractice whether they pay or not, what's your whole point about 'for profit medicine'? That ability to sue in that manner means that medicine is to be seen as a legal right--not a 'privileged product'. Which, gets to my whole point, since EMTALA approaches medicine as being universally available, and medical malpractice litigation rights approach medicine as being universally sueable (whether you pay or not), why is medicine's payment structure being done as if it is to be a privileged, restricted, for-profit, product? And, since you are even allowing medical malpractice litigation rights, what's your whole point about medicine being a 'for-profit product', dipshit? Or, just in your 'special' case, you are limiting those that can sue for medical malpracice only to those that truly 'pay up'? Did you really think this through, dumbass?
I was going to say more about rationing but, since I see that you can't even be consistent with your claims, I suspect that you wouldn't even try to understand the point. I will say that I'm not against people making money--I am against the institutional 'for-profit motive' preempting any and all incentives to anything like 'moral and ethical principles' because I don't think that 'we' can have a civil society without them. Also, when it comes to the application of medicine, there is always some form of rationing ('limiting the distribution')--but, I believe that the professionals, themselves, can 'ration out' medicine in a fairer, more sequential, step-wise, fashion than any 'for-profit' institution acting like you do in the mafia-form of 'rationing' you endorse--'pay up or else die'. And, if it were a universally financed program (like EMTALA and medical malpractice litigation rights already imply medicine as a universal right), professionals could do that fairer, more sequential, step-wise, fashion of 'rationing out medical care' in a manner that is consistent with medical knowledge--not 'for-profit incentives'. Do you understand that, workingman? Or, does you 'recap' include anything besides your ignorant applicatons of the 'for-profit motive'--even as you condone medicine as a right at least to the point that, even if you don't pay at all, you can sue if the treatment goes wrong....and that you don't see your own contradictions in that is just remarkable.....are you really thinking about this--or just reading off a script? Again, I would understand your position better if you were being paid to be such an ignorant, stupid, self-contradicting, hypocritical, ass as you are here.
Yet another vorbose post that did not answer any questions at all
I have been been saying the same thing since we started down this path you are just to stupid to understand it..
No government welfare to include medical Care for any reason to any one. You keep saying that the government pays for the 20 percent that costs 80 percent of their budget. Well dumb one most of that 20 percent is madicare which was paid for by the person recieving the Care.
Just because you cant afford the choice does not mean you still do not have the choice. It is a choice to say you cant afford it..
under universal or single payer systems the doctors Will not be rationing the Care the government Will be. Name one government agency that knows more about your life than you do?
Well another dumb statement you pay for your Care after the treatment not before so if you are suing because the doctor screwed up you do not pay the Bill. So everyone that sues for malpractice does not pay the Bill but i guess that is to complicated for you.
Profits are how the hospitals give raises, buy equipment, do reseach And development And building up keep.
I have been in hospitals that offer.universal health Care they smell like urine And appear dirty but universal health Care is better because equal access to nothing is still access.