Question for libertarians & conservatives

These "purity" tests to determine who's "worthy" of receiving medical care is a game that played out to it's illogical end would have maybe less than 5% of the population "saintly" enough to be allowed to see a doctor....the rest can go jump in a ditch and croak, ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

 

Personally, I buy insurance because not every medical bill is an emergency. As for the rest of the people that purchase insurance, you will have to ask them.

As far as bankruptcy, that concept has been demagogued by those pushing for universal healthcare. When people get very sick, they cannot work. When they cannot work, they cannot pay their bills. One of those bills are medical expenses, even for those that have insurance. People in that situation are fortunate because they can file for bankruptcy protection from all of their creditors so that they no longer owe anyone any money. In that situation, bankruptcy protection is a godsend.

 

Where on earth did you dig up your premise from? I am not aware of any more conservatives who have a belief that medical care should be rationed for life style than liberals. If anything liberals seem more likely to support that idea. I have heard many people say I as a smoker ought to be penalized for my life style, and most (but certainly not all) are liberal. Obama explicitly penalized smokers in Obamacare. Medicare penalizes and rations care of smokers.

To answer your artificial question, I think triage is a proper medical procedure which says treat the most survivable first but hold off on the unlikely to survive. How or why the patient became infirm has no bearing whatsoever on the triage, or for any medical care for that matter. I am a constitutional conservative, meaning not always a full blown social conservative.

 

No it is not right. You have entirely misrepresented the Conservative/Libertarian position. You are adding in language that does not exist in Conservative/Libertarian dogma. Yes they believe in personal responsibility as far as paying ones own way, but they do not take that to the next step and conclude that someone that is overweight, smokes, or drinks excessively etc, and say that those people owe more money. That is simply not part of their agenda. What you are talking about is sin tax territory, and sin taxes and the like are exclusively the domain of the left. Perhaps you haver come across this with a Libertarian that comes from the left?

With all of that being said, one cannot speak to everything that every person in this world might say or think. If someone that is Conservative/Libertarian has espoused such a view, they are speaking for themselves, NOT Conservative/Libertarian dogma. If this is as prevelant as you imply, then why dont you respond to those people when they say it? Why do you have to start a thread where YOU characterize THEIR position, and then YOU argue against the characterization that you just created? Why not reply directly to them? What you are doing here is falsely accusing Conservatives/Libertarians of a position that most of them do not hold.

I have an idea, why dont you link to a Conservative/Libertarian saying that a smoker should not get health care for their self imposed lung cancer? (The free market can certainly charge more for a smoker if they please, but that does not mean they should not receive care) It can either be on here or ANYWHERE in the media. That way we can all judge the intricacies in what they are saying, rather than taking your word for it. Does that sound fair?

There is another person on this board that frequently tells personal stories of him arguing with Conservatives. In every one of his stories, the Conservative is a blithering idiot and says the absolute dumbest things imaginable, and he in his stories always ends up the conquering hero where everyone around starts clapping and gives him a standing ovation after he rips the Conservative to shreds (according to him of course because nobody else actually saw it). It is downright silly. You arent getting into his territory here, but you are moving in that direction by you supposedly conveying THEIR argument.

 

My income group already pays a ridiculously outsized percentage of the federal budget. The absolute last thing that I support is to expand the federal budget by 20% so that I can pay the same outsized percentage of that too.

Aside from the truly poor which are covered by Medicaid as they should be, there is no reason why I should pay for or heavily subsidize Mr 50th percentile for their healthcare. Nor should anyone else. People should pay their own way. It is not my responsibility to subsidize Mr 50th percentile.

 

Why do you pose a question to everyone that you refuse to answer yourself?

 

It DOES show that the unvaxxed are the lion share of the problem. I'll look around more, I'm sure CDC stats will confirm it, anyway, because that's where the stat originally came from.

 

You're nitpicking. All the stats sho that the unvaxxed are the problem when it comes to Covid ICU beds and deaths.

 

Why do you make assumptions about what is in the OP when you didn't even read it?

Here's a quote from the OP:

...and I support the crisis care management policies enacted in those states.

 

First of all, You’re justifying separation by class. The libertarian and conservative views do not separate by class or by life style choice. They simply lump all people into one class which is “pay for your own care”. It may effect your wallet more but it still only effects your wallet. No libertarian or Republican has ever advocated for healthcare priority over lifestyle or class. Just advocated for you to pay for your own needs as an individual.

 

That isn't the question being asked. Read it again.

 

Let's make a deal, right quit telling lies about the left, and the left will reciprocate.

Deal?

I have a number of posts where I make the same statement, responding to conservatives lies about the left: I write:

"If I believed half of what republicans say about democrats, I'd still be a republican". or something similar.

Now, I stated what believe what conservatives believe: I'll quote you:

Yes they believe in personal responsibility as far as paying ones own way,

That much I said. And, on this:

but they do not take that to the next step and conclude that someone that is overweight, smokes, or drinks excessively etc, and say that those people owe more money. That is simply not part of their agenda. What you are talking about is sin tax territory,

That part was posed as a question.

But, the actual question I posited was, 'do you support rejecting unvaccinated in crisis standard of care'.

The question assumes that conservatives do not believe those whose life style choices lead to ill health should be supported with tax payer dollars. Now, that assumption could be wrong, you tell me.

The question doesn't assume 'they should they pay more'.

 

The upper 50% own 98% of the nation's wealth.

The lower 50% only 2%.

The upper 50% should pay at least 98% of it.

. And the sections below 50% who only own 2% of the nation's wealth, but who make plenty enough to live on, can contribute, as well, according to ability to pay.

Now, I know what the tax policy is, I'm just saying what I think it should be.

 

So is smoking crack. Why should we be forced to buy their crack?

Food giants know how to get people to buy and consume large quantities of their products. They have years of data on triggering behavior. The colors of ripe fruit stimulates apatite. Have you ever noticed that fast food logos are red, yellow, and orange? Once the person reacts and takes the first bite, it completes the loop and becomes a habit.

Of course its their choice, but there is no personal responsibility. We pay for the unhealthy food, pay them to sit on the couch, and then pay for the medical care.

My position on this issue is that we should end all food subsidies for unhealthy food, and make growing fat inconvenient and expensive for them.

 

I have to admit that the hardest exercise I do is turning the steering wheel towards the gym. After 45 minutes of cardio, I feel the high. I don't feel it after lifting weights, but like you, I am happy it is done.

If I am going to enjoy a big meal with a good beer (IPA) I pre-pay by adding an extra gym day in advance.

 

And #16 tended to confuse that but great we agree it should be determine by severity of whatever the person is suffering from and need of care not vaccinations.

 

The way they are spending the money now, I am 100% against having my money used to mask symptoms and create a fatter, sicker society. It would take far less money to do it right. With the exception of unexpected illness/injury, the vast majority of illness can be prevented.

I would go the opposite direction and spend the money on prevention. Eliminate all subsidies for unhealthy foods and make getting fat inconvenient and expensive for them.

 

Except you are looking at only one side of the picture. The stats indicate that I am much more likely to be hospitalized after taking the vaccine than originally thought.

 

I am not sure why you persist with this line of discussion. You misrepresented the Conservative/Libertarian mindset on this topic. Others have weighed in saying the same thing. My point has been made. I am not sure what else there is to say on the subject. If someone says something, by all means respond to them. Do not start a thread and then tell the other side what they think which is what you have done here. I dont think your intent was malicious, but you misrepresented nonetheless.

 

I know; I answered the question. I controverted the premise.

 

I am in my early 50's, earn a good income, and after many years of hard work, have finally gotten to the place where my net worth has soared as I prepare for retirement. Lets look at fictional John who is 30 years old, earns 50k per year, and like most 30 year olds, his net worth is still in the negative or near zero ( Mr 50th percentile) (Like most, I was this guy once, and it never occurred to me that others should be paying 98% of my healthcare).

Despite the fact that we tax income rather than "wealth", you think that because I have after many years accumulated significant assets, that I and others should pay 98% of fictional Johns healthcare so that he can turn around and purchase a 4th big screen TV for his basement and a subscription to HULU in addition to Netflix, while he goes out to dinner 5 nights per week? To me, that is utterly absurd. He needs to pay for his own necessities, and prioritize the nice to haves for when he can actually afford them. By no one's definition is he poor. I do not have any problem with a social safety net, and by all means the truly poor and infirmed should absolutely get their healthcare paid for through Medicaid or something similar. But to state that people should pay the percentage of their own healthcare based their income percentiles percentage share of overall wealth, to me, is truly a nonsensical.

You are however entitled to your own belief system. I personally do not believe in the from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need mantra. I am personally not a supporter of Karl Marx.

 

I can't find the question mark.......

 

That is either a failure of government and total lack of leadership and competence or it is grand-standing for political purposes.

Take your pick.

Since you are so lacking in knowledge, I'll educate you properly using a real-world example.

Was the fiasco of tents for STUPID-19 patients in Central Park in NYC necessary?

No. I give you the 42nd Combat Aviation Brigade of the New York National Guard.

Here's how that could have been avoided with a couple of text messages:

Depraved Indifference Murderer Cuomo: Hey! Adjutant General! Get me some choppers down here to transport the sick to less crowded hospitals pronto!
Adjutant General: Yes, sir! Hey! Commander, 42nd Combat Aviation Brigade, task two companies to conduct medivac ops in NYC, stat!
CDR, 42nd Combat Aviation Brigade: Roger that! [Should I task the 1st Battallion, 2nd Battalion or 3rd Battalion? Gosh, I simply cannot decide. Eeeny-meeny-miny-mo.....]
CDR, 42nd Combat Aviation Brigade: Hey! Commander 2nd Battalion! Send two companies down to medivac COVID patients to other hospitals.
CDR, 2nd Battalion, 42nd Combat Aviation Brigade: Yes, sir! I'm on it! [Should I task the Alpha Company, Bravo Company, Charlie Company or Delta Company? Gosh, I simply cannot decide. Eeeny-meeny-miny-mo.....]
CDR, 2nd Battalion, 42nd Combat Aviation Brigade: Hey! Commanders Bravo and Charlie Companies, get your people down to NYC to medivac COVID patients on the double. Alpha Company Commander, you're on alert, Delta Company Commander, you're on stand-by.

That's all it took.

Well, that, plus a brain and a Lotus-style spreadsheet like MS Excel.

You set up your spreadsheet listing every hospital in the State, the total number of beds, total number of occupied beds, total number of ICU beds, total number of ICU beds occupied, total number non-ICU beds and total number non-ICU beds occupied.

Then you have the hospitals call, fax, text, tweet, or email their status every 4 hours so's you can update the spreadsheet and manage your bed space.

That's the key.....managing the resources that you have....like bed space.

Granted, not every State has a combat aviation brigade, but some do, and some have combat aviation battalions and some have medium lift companies or otherwise have medium lift capability.

Even if that wasn't true, there are private helicopters and private ambulances.

If any hospital is over-crowded, it's because government failed. Period.

My sister lived in rural Chenango County, New York. More than 200 beds, and most of them were empty. People could have received proper care there, and perhaps lived, instead of dying in a tent in Central Park.

Politicians are not leaders, or organizers or planners, except when leading, organizing or planning schemes to enrich themselves, their families, their friends and friends of friends and friends of friends of friends.

That will change just as soon as y'all have the courage to vote for anyone who doesn't have a "D" or "R" after their name.

You have presented several fallacies, including False Dichotomy.

There would be no crisis if government managed its bed space efficiently and effectively.

 

I for one don't mind the government promoting anything, but I don't like the government throwing my confiscated money around to do it. Yes, other than the bare minimum for the indigent who have no other option, i am against taxes going to health care. Health care is nowhere to be found in Article I. (And please don't throw that promote the general welfare crap back at me.) Besides the federal government's prime purpose of Obamacare, Medicare for all, universal healthcare and to a large but not total extent Medicaid is more control over the people. Health and medical care or mostly just nice sounding foils

 

Okay. I'll accept that.

So, What libertarians and conservatives basically say is NO to medicare, etc., or any type of 'socialized' medicine.

Right?