ShinkuDragon Wrote:finally someone that proves what i have been saying, if you are that poor, going to prision is better than being ou of it.

ShiKage Wrote:Being in prison is better than being in most situations in the real world. Prisoners get free education, free healthcare, free entertainment, etc. The only problem with that lifestyle is dealing with people who'll want to have homo-erotic relations with you or worrying about people trying to kill you. If it weren't for the fear of that, I'm sure we'd see more instances of this, just because prisoners have it way better than most instances in the real world.

FrozNlite Wrote:You know something's wrong with a captalistic health care system if pomegranate like this happens. Just sayin'.

FrozNlite Wrote:You know something's wrong with a captalistic health care system if pomegranate like this happens. Just sayin'.

Quote: in "a freer market" we'd end up with one company monopolizing the entire industry and raising the prices to insane heights because
what are you gonna do? Buy it or die

Sarah Wrote:Prisoners are given the basics in human right. The only reason people stay in there is because their rights are respected greater than they would be outside. There is no incentive to stay out of prison because that means they'll struggle to eat, struggle to find jobs, struggle find a place to sleep. That's not a broken prison system, that's a broken country. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. It's not something you should ever have to pay outrageous prices for; it should be covered by taxing.

To quote a friend who read your post, Matt,



Healthcare needs to be completely taken out of the hands of businessmen.

Quote:the inevitable result of competition is a victor and once that happens, it settles into monopoly
it already happens
look at microsoft, if the market were "freer" then the Supreme Court wouldn't have stepped in and busted them down, allowing apple to actually make some headway
better examples are mostly earlier in history before things were regulated as strictly as they are
the Oil industry in the early 1900s/late 1800s for example
there's a reason "Rockefeller" is synonymous with "rich bastard"
and of course the idea that getting to not die from a horrible disease isn't a human right is just plain absurd

Sarah Wrote:EVERYTHING requires you to take from others. Are you against feeding the homeless, as well? I mean, we work to eat but there are some people out there who can't do that -- should they starve? What about those people in impoverished countries? Should we just say pineapple 'em because they aren't doing the world any real good?

Quote:Last I remember you'd never worked a day in your life and were covered under the umbrella of your wealthy parents. Didn't you once make a thread about never wanting to work, and how you think you should be able to just do what you want all of the time? I'm not sure if that's changed but if it hasn't then you're kind of a hypocrite. If you're not working then you shouldn't get healthcare, of course. Why should your parents pick up the tab for you? You're 19 or 20 now -- legally an adult, at least. Or maybe you're okay with being charged out the ass for healthcare and would gladly accept those charges upon yourself if you become ill. Or are you suggesting that some exclusions should be made? And if so, where do you draw the line? It's okay for your parents to support you out of obligation despite the fact that you're technically able to support yourself but not okay for them to toss a few extra dollars in taxes out so that everyone in the country has access to this "privilege"? The latter would certainly be easier on their wallets.

Since I don't know enough about the American economy for the other part of the discussion I'll post my friends response again

Fiel Wrote:Problem is he was charged with robbery and not assault even though he had a weapon. This means he won't get any healthcare whatsoever. Pretty sure the suits in the government made sure of that.

I'm not sure of this guy's previous criminal, but he's beyond screwed now. People aren't going to hire him with a criminal record. He's arguably worse off than before.

Sarah Wrote:Only VIOLENT offenders get healthcare? That is retarded. There's obviously an easy solution to that, though. Attack a guard.

FrozNlite Wrote:Well now that this has turned into a universal healthcare debate, I'm just going to throw out my support for Sarah 100%. All of her posts thus far have been excellent, intelligent and logical. Matt, all I'm going to ask you is if you do have health insurance under your parents, and to ask yourself what your life would look like if they didn't. I'm going to take a wild guess and say it wouldn't be as carefree and relaxed as it is now.

Fiel Wrote:Problem is he was charged with robbery and not assault even though he had a weapon. This means he won't get any healthcare whatsoever. Pretty sure the suits in the government made sure of that.

I'm not sure of this guy's previous criminal, but he's beyond screwed now. People aren't going to hire him with a criminal record. He's arguably worse off than before.

And really, put yourself in the government's position. If they do give this guy healthcare that will encourage other people to disobey the law simply to have their health problems attended in prison. Can you imagine the mass civil disobedience that would ensue if they gave this guy healthcare? I understand that his health problems are severe, but I don't think he thought past step 2.