Is health care a responsibility of the government. or a personal responsibility?

The "welfare" argument is dead and gone, it never even had a basis in fact. Its the excuse to do whatever they want to do by people who hate the Constitution

 

Isn't that what I posted?

 

That's about the weakest survey methodology I have ever seen. But it shows how low people have to go to get results that justify their bias.

 

There is no question that entrenched "thinking" (if you can call it thinking) is a major part of the problem. For some reason certain right wingers in this society are obsessed with the idea that in order for something to work, or to even exist, there has to be a profit in it for the rich. Even if there is a great sacrifice to society, so long as the wealthy are benefited, they delight in having it take place.

Case in point - the criminally terroristic war of imperialism Bush imposed on Iraq: This war did not benefit American society or the world in any way, shape, or form. Thousands of Americans died, many more tens of thousands were injured. The numbers were far higher for Iraqis where an entire nation's infrastructure was destroyed. And the cost was over $2 trillion. But right wingers still applauded because wealthy elites profited to the tune of multiple billions.

With the $2 trillion wasted in Iraq, we could have financed universal health care, Iraq society would still be peaceful, we would not have all those homeless or dead/injured veterans, and society would enjoy greater productivity from the wellness increased through health care reform.

People have choices: they can either destroy society by creating more wars which benefit the elites at the cost of the common people, or they can improve society by having genuine reform which benefits all. Right wingers prefer the former, patriots prefer the latter. I'm with the patriots.

 

It is the responsibility of the government because it is the very reason why a government was even constituted in the first place. As explained in the Preamble to the Constitution. This supersedes any Article, Amendment or enumerated power you can come up with. If our government doesn't fulfill the very purpose for which it was constituted, it would have no reason to even exist.

 

why is the right so against the government helping people that are sick, disabled, elderly, ect.. with their medical needs?

 

Please remember that when the 10th Amendment was written, the Federal Income Tax had not yet been imposed on American citizens but since Americans appear to have little say over how those $ Trillions are spent, we get substandard health care.
Regrettably, the vast majority of our money goes to distant Mid East Wars from which we get only mutilated, burned, traumatized & dead young, US G.I.s.
The rest of the developed world appears to spend that money at home & more of their taxes go to health care for their citizens.

 

ut they sure afford a butt ton of cigarettes, booze, air jordans, smart phones, xboxes, warriors tickets, live music, vacations to cancun, $33,000 automobiles, cable, satellite TV, designer clothing.......

 

You say you are with the patriots, but separate right-wing and patriotism- which most on the right would say is backwards.
Right is a rather general term, not a very definitive one. Not sure it fits me by your definition. I am a conservative by mine. I'm also a constitutionalist, a free-enterprise, free-market advocate, and an advocate for personal responsibility, high values and individual strength- which, if it were common, would be the social vaccine that would solve a vast number of our problems.

I have absolute confidence that you cannot give people self-respect, wealth, wisdom or courage- and trying to do so consistently does much more harm than good. In case you don't understand the wealth point- you can give people money, yes. You can subsidize them- but wealth is something you make and build, not just money you have. Being capable of building it, of being able to make it on your own, brings an emotional paycheck of great value. Every successful person I know (quite a few) knows that and is motivated by that more than the money. We also know that when people are "gifted" is some way with riches, most are soon poor because they are have no idea how to manage it, and worse they never get that emotional paycheck- which you can only write to yourself, when you have earned it. Until then, you are poor in a number of ways.

It's also common for people to resent those who are paying the bills (hate the successful people) and believe that wealth is always stolen. Everything to such people has an ulterior motive that somehow has lived off the backs of the poor. This is victimhood, and that deprives them of the power to succeed for themselves. Conservatives see things a bit differently. The fact that some are rich is proof that others can become rich. That some are successful is proof that you too can become successful. In other words- accomplishments of others set the bar to aspire to.

Wars aren't generally for profit; they are political; often ideological. Bush was under great pressure to do something- even if it was wrong. For 911, somebody had to pay. Bush was sort of a puppet, afraid to say something unpopular. I agree it was a bad and unnecessary choice. Vietnam was also a war that shouldn't have been entered, and the reasons were political. Of course money is involved in nearly everything, because goods and services are being consumed. However, there are a great many ways to build a thriving business, you don't have to have a war for that, and most businessmen know it.

 

There is a lot to be said for the way people set their priorities. A great many people of retirement age today could have taken the money they spent on cigarettes, beer, booze, tattoos and things that served little purpose and invested it. For example, a person might have invested $10k in 1970 with Buffet, and be worth $5 Mil today. Accumulating 10K then would have required saving about $5 per day for about 5 years. Short term thinking invariably produces long term shortages.

 

The point is for profit healthcare does not work.
Is is not something one can priceshop or go down the street. It is a necessity

No state in the nation has good healthcare so I’m not sure what your mentioning of California has to do with anything besides expressly proving your political bias.

 

I am glad you have had a good education and have a good career, I have been fairly fortunate in those areas as well, where we diverge is how we think people should be treated. Healthcare should not be something someone has to worry about. A decision between eating and having a tooth removed should not be something someone struggles with in the greatest country on earth...

 

Never heard that one before. Guess they didn't get that memo in heaven either as they talk about the great battle between lucifer and his follower's and Jesus and his follower's. How about those great battles in the final days?

 

People are petitioning government to take from others, to supply them their necessities, so they can spend their own money on their own luxuries

 

So, you don't have any alternative plan that achieves Trump's goals of "something terrific!" that "covers everybody!" at "less cost!" like those I have cited.

 

If the government stuck to...you know...governing, maybe it wouldn't be trillions of dollars in debt.

 

Yes, get the govt out of the health insurance industry and out of health care.

All you have done is point to other countries and claim they do better than the USA is doing today (and the USA is doing poorly thanks to obamacare), and conclude the USA should follow the herd. All other nations have serious problems with their healthcare, even Canada and Sweden. The USA can do better.

And your "facts" are your link to that abysmal study in post #1. Which means there are no facts to back you up.

 

Not something one can priceshop?
Hogwash. Other nations are advertising medical travel in the US now, to take advantage of better prices overseas- and doing a great business. That's competition, price based.

Many years back I was diagnosed with cancer (melanoma), and needed surgery. I was just coming out of a really hard time, had no insurance, and no back up money. So, I went to the surgeon and told him what the situation was, and asked if he could do the job at a lower price. He said- could you handle $200? Wow. I was shocked.
Next, I asked him if it was possible to do a direct closure instead of the scheduled skin graft- and he said yes. This was removal of an area of tissue 3 x 7inches, for melanoma.
Then I asked if he could do it in an out patient clinic- and while hesitant, he agreed.
Then, I asked him if he could do it with local anesthetic- and he said, you have no idea what you are talking about.
We did talk about it, he explained the issues, I told him I could handle it- and we did it that way. No anesthesiologist bill.
The hospital negotiated a deal for the out-patient surgery suite as well.

I negotiated my medical bill down over 85% from the original cost. Paid it on a time payment agreement too.
You don't know if you don't ask- and most people don't think they can to do that.

I'm mentioning Callifornia, because they are leading the way in giving things away free and having no idea how they are going to pay the bills it creates.
Bad judgment.... and an example of what happens to those who favor it.

 

I guess it's because they don't want rich people to pay taxes for anything that doesn't benefit them immediately and directly. And those things only help the middle and lower class.

 

Why...because we're dealing with people who have varying and essential needs...it's the moral thing to do...

 

Sure. So long as you consider the choice between too expensive for anybody who is not rich vs Bankruptcy to be "competition"

 

The Constitution is a guideline...a document that is 230 years old could never represent society in 2018...it's mostly about interpretation and this can change during society's evolution...

 

Here is the "wording"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

 

Using your anecdotal story, which is rare, what would have happened if he would have said no. What about a heart attack, are you going to ask for a list of prices — that most hospitals will flat out refuse — or die. I am fine with a private option that can charge whatever the market will bare, but we need a public option that cannot destroy the lives of people by charging the worlds highest rates.

 

But then what would the defense contractors and oil companies do?