I bet you know how to read the rules. You agreed to follow the rules, which means don't get personal, when you signed on. I won't debate it with you. Let's stick to the subject of the thread title.
In principle, yes. The devil is in the details. For example, should everyone have the right to see a doctor every month for a checkup? Every week? Why not? The rich can get that. And for what issues? Plastic surgery for every one who wants it? Bypasses and stomach reduction for the morbidly obese? What if I get a note from my doctor that attests that I would benefit from cosmetic surgery to boost my self esteem? Should you have to pay for that? How about emergency room treatment for daredevils? I say we owe each other more in terms of preventative care than in medical care. How about psychiatric analysis and therapy for everyone who is periodically depressed? I don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's issues, especially if they are on the other side of the country and I know nothing of how their lifestyle may have contributed to the issue.
It's easily policed. No cosmetic stuff is covered. And psychiatric consults are covered when referred by a GP. Though I do agree that obesity related conditions should be excluded. It should be regarded as a lifestyle option, and thus fall under the same 'elective' banner as cosmetic surgery.
Nothing is easy. "Cosmetic stuff" could include facial reconstruction surgery for a 2 year old bitten by her dope addict daddy's pitbull. That stuff is usually covered by charity hospitals and fund raisers, though.
We provide for plastic surgery if it's a medical necessity (cosmetic surgery is something different, hence the term 'cosmetic'). We don't fund elective procedures - anything which does not arise from a medical diagnosis. EG: you can't have a hip replacement if your hip is medically determined to be okay as is. You can't have a caesarian section if there is no medical reason for doing so. Etc etc.
We are not talking about elective surgery. That’s another issue yes emergency room treatment for daredevils, or do you prefer they just die and not get medical care? Just have different values. I gladly pay taxes for other peoples children to go to school free. I gladly pay for roads that I will not drive on. I gladly pay for national parks that I don’t go to. But I will gladly also pay taxes that will prevent people from dying
Why would it bother you to reconstruct a two-year-old face that was bitten off? Maybe we should punish her because her father is a dope addict
Who isn't talking about elective surgery? I never saw any limitation on that in "medicare for all". And obviously no one is going to call their lap band surgery "elective surgery" if they are trying to get the government to pay for it. Second, don't worry about what I would prefer. The thread is not about me. I thought that would be clear by now. The daredevil is not allowed to be ignored by ER's. I have not called for repeal of that law. Look, I really don't like ignoring people, but I have to be satisfied that they: 1) respect the forum's prohibition on personal attack, 2) that they don't engage in hyperbole (for example, "or do you prefer that they just die"), and 3) that they don't attribute arguments to me that I never made. Under those three standards, your posts make it impossible for me to continue responding to them.
I see above arrogance. The claim "Trump is evil and I by golly am great". Thus we see Trump being harpooned.
I have been there, at Nurnberg. Little did I know when I was there I would post comments about that stadium.
I am not the one you ask. Clinton was a lawyer when he raped Juanita. As to Trump, he has not been put on trial over your claims.
No. what you read is that I am a normal person with the same normal number of flaws such as those I listed in the post you quote, to the same degree as most other people. Most people are fairly decent folk with a set of values, that they try hard to exemplify most of the time. Trump is amoral sleazy trash who lacks any moral compass at all.
squidward said: ↑ Anybody who wants me to pay more tax, so they can get free ****, is not my friend CCitizen, you are reprehensibly dishonest or ignorant. Conservatives are, on average, more compassionate and more giving than liberals. It's all documented in the book Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide, Who Gives, Who Doesn't and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks P 12 But I am talking here about averages, not special cases. It is simply undeniable that today, conservatives are most congenial to the four forces of charity. (Ten years ago, in graduate school) I lived in a world largely characterized by the kind of impressionistic stereotyping offered by President Carter at the beginning of this chapter. Do rich people want tax cuts? I would have told you it's because they are uncharitable. Europeans care more than Americans about the world's poor. Socialism is more compassionate than capitalism. And so on. My personal views about "charity" amounted to little more than unquestioned liberal political beliefs. When I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals - who I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did - would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran the analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.