What do you think would be fair?Originally Posted by clocker
en(un)lightened
What do you think would be fair?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Shovel Ready
I asked first.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
en(un)lightened
Then I will answer my way.
Health care is unfailingly mentioned as a right...not a God-given one, either; that would just be unpalatable...so it must be human-given, because that is all that is allowed.
Right?
But never mind that just now.
Given also, somehow - I don't know how - is this silly caveat that says this right to health-care granted by the...commonweal, I guess you'd call it - is to be provided in whole or part by the employer.
My reasoning is easy enough for fifth-graders (American specie), but I don't know about the rest of you, because of the international cohort here.
It comes down to this:
Health-care of any sort cannot be provided for free.
Neither can it be provided without account; things need to be costed-out and paid for.
It must also be accepted that the monies for this purpose emerge from the public trough, as all money does.
The public (that means ALL of us) has "title" to these monies, and has the individual and collective right and DUTY to supervise - at some remove - their expenditure.
At this point, I will point out the all-encompassing and downright altruistic inclination we all have to respect the rights of the individual.
One would think it of utmost importance to hold the selection of one's health-care provision rather closely, yet the liberal/progressive mindset chooses to forego this, preferring instead to meekly (yet insistently) entrust this most important of all issues to an entity whose natural (human!) motivations (profit, primarily) are diametrically opposed.
In order to bolster my argument, allow me also to grant an absurd advantage to the opposition by stipulating that individual pay levels should be subject to some sort of inflated proportion in order to ease the financial pain associated with paying for health-care - given all of this, what possible rationale could be concocted for the employer's being charged with the responsibility for choosing (and thus establishing the worth of) one's health insurance?
I would like to say the following to all of you who would prefer this scenario:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU STUPID FUCKS?
What on Earth would, could, or should cause you to abdicate this...right?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Shovel Ready
So, as an employer, paying 78% of a health care plan premium would put you out of business and paying anything at all offends your political sensibilities.
Does that about sum it up?
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
en(un)lightened
No, it does not.
Did you read my post at all.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Poster
BT Rep: +1
I would like to ask how private health care in U.S.A. Pays for or gets organs for transplant? I know they pay for blood.
I would also like to know if transplant surgery is available in the U.K. and if so do they jump the queue to get the freely donated organs?*
* This question has just been answered in an item posted yesterday.
It appears that private transplant, except living donors, is going to be banned in the U.K.
http://www.physorg.com/news168255290.html
Last edited by bigboab; 08-01-2009 at 06:50 AM.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
en(un)lightened
To "allay fears"?It appears that private transplant, except living donors, is going to be banned in the U.K.
http://www.physorg.com/news168255290.html
One would think a nice dose of Socialist transparency sufficient to counter, eh?
Ah!
I've spotted the problem...you-all don't have any B.O. to do the job right.
Lucky bar-stewards.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Poster
BT Rep: +1
Yes. Just ban any operating procedures not carried out by the NHS. If they can afford private treatment they can go to the U.S.A. and get it.To "allay fears"?It appears that private transplant, except living donors, is going to be banned in the U.K.
http://www.physorg.com/news168255290.html
One would think a nice dose of Socialist transparency sufficient to counter, eh?
Ah!
I've spotted the problem...you-all don't have any B.O. to do the job right.
Lucky bar-stewards.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
en(un)lightened
If you can find a way to make passage but land indigent, you can likely have it done for free, too.Yes. Just ban any operating procedures not carried out by the NHS. If they can afford private treatment they can go to the U.S.A. and get it.
Unlike our citizens.
Hey, here's an idea:
Lets have the Brits clone B.O. (on a state visit, like, so it'll be a naturalized citizen) so they can fully realize the benefits of...um...to be derived.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Poster
BT Rep: +1
It is unusual for you to make a spelling mistake Kev.If you can find a way to make passage but land indigent, you can likely have it done for free, too.Yes. Just ban any operating procedures not carried out by the NHS. If they can afford private treatment they can go to the U.S.A. and get it.
Unlike our citizens.
Hey, here's an idea:
Lets have the Brits clone B.O. (on a state visit, like, so it'll be a naturalized citizen) so they can fully realize the benefits of...um...to be derived.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks