Health care- what's this guy supposed to do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ella
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComputerGeek25 said:
What amazes me is that when some people disagree over a course of action and try to have a reasonable debate, others have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...
Funny how the truth gets called an adhominem attach around here.
 
aspawloski4th said:
The fact is when you speak of “charity” there isn’t enough money to be given away as chrity to do what is needed for true healthcare. The current system is causing many to loose their lives, or loose their homes, while bing isurance company CEO’s get rich. Talk about misplaces priorities.
Click to expand...
CEO’s getting rich isn’t a symptom of the healthcare industry. It happens in all industries.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
CEO’s getting rich isn’t a symptom of the healthcare industry. It happens in all industries.
Click to expand...
I think a CEO getting riching running Coca Cola has less moral implications than a CEO getting rich running Humana health insurance.
 
aspawloski4th said:
The fact is when you speak of “charity” there isn’t enough money to be given away as chrity to do what is needed for true healthcare. The current system is causing many to loose their lives, or loose their homes, while bing isurance company CEO’s get rich. Talk about misplaces priorities.
Click to expand...
We have “true healthcare” already! People get treated for free all over the country. Is it the norm? Perhaps not. I, for one, have twice been granted a reprieve of all hospital costs because of financial constraints. This, of course, gets absorbed by those who can pay – a regrettable circumstance, but one that is inherent in a free-market system.

What you seem to be advocating is taking money from EVERYONE in order to pay for a few people – whether the payers want to contribute or not. This is contrary to the notion of charity, in which people who wish to do God’s work give of their own free will. It is not right to mandate a charitable mindset; as I pointed out before, it engenders ill will on the part of the givers and entitlement on the part of the takers, and no real good is done.

Moreover, the allegations that the “current system is causing many to loose [sic] their lives” are nothing compared to what will happen if the government is in charge of balancing that checkbook. The costs will spiral out of control, and care will begin to be rationed based on a “priority” basis due to lack of funds and doctors. Do you want to die while you wait for your angioplasty because some government bureaucracy can’t manage the system?

Peace,
Dante
 
aspawloski4th said:
I think a CEO getting riching running Coca Cola has less moral implications than a CEO getting rich running Humana health insurance.
Click to expand...
This is based on what? That a health insurance company pays for people’s medical care? I tell you what: I want the BEST people possible to run any company that has anything to do with keeping me alive and healthy – if that means exorbitant salaries, then so be it.

The day the government begins to dictate what is a “fair” wage for CEOs is the day you can start counting down to socialism – or worse.

Peace,
Dante
 
aspawloski4th said:
The fact is when you speak of “charity” there isn’t enough money to be given away as chrity to do what is needed for true healthcare. The current system is causing many to loose their lives, or loose their homes, while bing isurance company CEO’s get rich. Talk about misplaces priorities.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that there is more money to be taken away as taxes than there is money to be given away as charity?
 
aspawloski4th said:
I think a CEO getting riching running Coca Cola has less moral implications than a CEO getting rich running Humana health insurance.
Click to expand...
You’re argument falls apart once you consider the workers and share holders of the company.

Is it morally right for the CEO of Coca-Cola to layoff large amounts of workers so the board gets rich.
 
gamewell45 said:
St. Francis,

Its not about contributions, its about attitude towards human life in general.
Click to expand...
We care about human life in general. However, the attitude that “if you don’t want some sort of large scale, single payer, federal government based healthcare solution you must hate people” is incorrect, and insulting.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
What amazes me is that when some people disagree over a course of action and try to have a reasonable debate, others have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...
Computer,

I notice that sometimes when people don’t agree on certain topics in here they automatically classify it as an “ad hominem” attack. I honestly think that its just an excuse to deny that the person with the opposite opinion has validity to their position.
 
gamewell45 said:
Computer,

I notice that sometimes when people don’t agree on certain topics in here they automatically classify it as an “ad hominem” attack. I honestly think that its just an excuse to deny that the person with the opposite opinion has validity to their position.
Click to expand...
No such thing. Most people here are willing to hear well reasoned arguments for socialized healthcare, using statistical and philisophical arguements as well as church teaching.

However, several members post with the implication that somehow people who are not in favor of socialized healthcare are agaisnt people, and therefore “less Catholic.”
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
However, several members post with the implication that somehow people who are not in favor of socialized healthcare are agaisnt people, and therefore “less Catholic.”
Click to expand...
Your words, not mine.

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
 
gamewell45 said:
Computer,

I notice that sometimes when people don’t agree on certain topics in here they automatically classify it as an “ad hominem” attack. I honestly think that its just an excuse to deny that the person with the opposite opinion has validity to their position.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand what an ad hominem attack is.
 
DanteAlighieri said:
We have “true healthcare” already! People get treated for free all over the country. Is it the norm? Perhaps not. I, for one, have twice been granted a reprieve of all hospital costs because of financial constraints. This, of course, gets absorbed by those who can pay – a regrettable circumstance, but one that is inherent in a free-market system.

What you seem to be advocating is taking money from EVERYONE in order to pay for a few people – whether the payers want to contribute or not. This is contrary to the notion of charity, in which people who wish to do God’s work give of their own free will. It is not right to mandate a charitable mindset; as I pointed out before, it engenders ill will on the part of the givers and entitlement on the part of the takers, and no real good is done.

Moreover, the allegations that the “current system is causing many to loose [sic] their lives” are nothing compared to what will happen if the government is in charge of balancing that checkbook. The costs will spiral out of control, and care will begin to be rationed based on a “priority” basis due to lack of funds and doctors. Do you want to die while you wait for your angioplasty because some government bureaucracy can’t manage the system?

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
Id die from that now ,because I don’t have insurance. If I needed that now, Id be calling the funeral home telling them to be ready for a dead body soon.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
You’re argument falls apart once you consider the workers and share holders of the company.

Is it morally right for the CEO of Coca-Cola to layoff large amounts of workers so the board gets rich.
Click to expand...
The difference is Cocal cola is a product for enjoyement, no one dies if Coke raises their prices. People dies when I health insurance comapny denys coverage. Very elementary.
 
aspawloski4th said:
The difference is Cocal cola is a product for enjoyement, no one dies if Coke raises their prices. People dies when I health insurance comapny denys coverage. Very elementary.
Click to expand...
You’re arguement fails on two levels…

People will die if they can’t pay their rent/mortgage and paying for food if they lose their income.

And people are not denied care, they are denied coverage. Big difference. People can work out payment plans with healthcare providers.

Very elementary stuff.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
You’re arguement fails on two levels…

People will die if they can’t pay their rent/mortgage and paying for food if they lose their income.

And people are not denied care, they are denied coverage. Big difference. People can work out payment plans with healthcare providers.

Very elementary stuff.
Click to expand...
Assuming they have the money. Ofcourse thats right if they loose their house thats no big deal.! They get their heart operation, which takes away all their living expoenses then they loose their home and die from exposure. Think it through.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top