You really think that even remotely resembles a good argument?

for someone else who’s not paying a cent

What, you’re the only person in the country who pays taxes? Of course he’s paying as well, under our system anyway.

Heard it, it was stupid then as well.

No, healthcare under the NHS system isn’t 100% “free”, but it’s “free at the point of delivery”, which is what really matters, stupid.

I would like to thank Frame for covering for me while Buzby was fucking my ADSL modem in the ass. There’s another thing that needs to be renationalised – the public phone lines.

Do they have a right to eat filet mignon in mansions whilebeing granting admission to HArvard? No. Your suggestion that I’m arguing for the right to the “best food everyday” is just more bullshit right wing stupidity.

No. I would argue for baseline nutrition and shetler just I am arguing for baseline medical care, which in my mind, includes life savign procedures or medications, as I am taking, you know, living the most baseline of baselines there is.

More directly, this is a total dodge because what you wrote was:

I am paying for the ability for me to get whatever medical procedure I need. You want me to also pay for a hip replacement or cancer treatment for someone else who’s not paying a cent. At what point does it become OK to deny the “right” for a person to receive health care because they can’t pay?

That’s I got mine, so screw you. No two ways about it.

Why do you keep enaging in this kind of falacious argument?

It is certainly a great quality to make one’s own way in life and to be self-sufficient along the way. But let’s not forget, when you join an HMO you are not, in fact, relying entirely on yourself for your health care. You are, instead, joining a pool of shared risk that makes it possible for you to afford medical care. If you were truly supporting yourself you would be paying full price everytime you went to the doctor for a check up, for every prescription for every medical procedure, minor or major.

So once again, your free market/self-reliance rhetoric is just more bullshit designed to make you feel morally superior.

At the same time, your ability to pay your own way in life is a very different thing from accepting a social responsibility for the well-being of your fellow citizens who are worse off than you. Self-sufficiency does not, in and of itself, negate your moral responsibility to your fellow man does it?

Then again, you obviously are reluctant to simply admit to the ultimate the consequences of your rhetoric which is that some people should be denied life saving care simply because they can’t afford it.

I think I know why you won’t admit it. Because you know it’s deeply immoral.

To put it directly, the only morally acceptable answer to this question is that ability to pay should never be a criteria for eligibility for medical procedures.

So it must be a “right”. Everyone must be eligible for every medical procedure.

Why only medical care? Why isn’t everyone morally entitled to the best food every day?

And it’s not “I got mine” — it’s “I won’t force you to pay my way in life.” That’s what government does — it takes money from people by force. People spend their own money much more wisely than they spend other people’s money.

I have always found it simply astonishing when conservatives push “I got mine” as the Golden Rule. Have you no shame?

To put it directly, the only morally acceptable answer to this question is that ability to pay should never be a criteria for eligibility for medical procedures.

And JWG, if you can afford to pay out of pocket for a major medical procedure that your health care plan has rejected for cost effectiveness, bully for you. Not everyone can afford the upwards of $400,000 that a heart transplant costs.

What your saying, however, is that some people in need of a heart transplant should not get one based solely on their ability to pay. How awesome of you.

Right now we have a system in which my access to specialists and advanced treatments is determined by profit-motivated accountants.

And I am paying for the ability for me to get whatever medical procedure I need. You want me to also pay for a hip replacement or cancer treatment for someone else who’s not paying a cent. At what point does it become OK to deny the “right” for a person to receive health care because they can’t pay?

Nimrod’s argument was exactly mine

Nimrod argued that it was “horrible” to charge people for health care. he also said:

I criticised the idea of patients being charged for basic treatment

He has twice called for “free” health care for all and claimed doctors would still get paid. That’s not what you are arguing.

Do you want to argue policy details or do you want set some basic principles which those policies should reflect?

I say we start with everyone should have access to basic health care regardless of ability to pay.

And please tell me you’re joking about government employees deciding who gets what treatments. Right now we have a system in which my access to specialists and advanced treatments is determined by profit-motivated accountants.

You’re attacking a feature of a hypothetical plan that doesn’t even exist while totally ignoring that the same procedure exists in the system you hold out as your shining example of how everything should be done.

Nimrod’s argument was exactly mine: that people should have access to care regardless of their ability to pay across the board. He just worded it differently.

making health care available to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay

That wasn’t Nimrod’s argument.

But since it’s yours, I’ll ask again. How much health care do we guarantee be made available to everyone? Do we limit it according to procedure? Do we limit according to cost? Which government employee gets to make the decision about who gets what treatment?

And there are no examples of nationally funded health care that work better than our system? There are indeed.

Listen, you don’t have to call it a right since that bugs the fuck out of you for some stupid reason but making health care available to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, is a good thing for society. You know what society is, right? That thing were all in together?

That’s why we provide education to people regardless of their ability to pay. Why not health care?

why don’t we priviatize police, fire, education and roads?

There are many privatized examples of all of these services. Why do people use these privatized examples? Because they work better.

Does that mean we should completely privatize them? No. Of course, the last time I checked, health care was not completely privatized either. However, Nimrod claims it is immoral for patients to have to pay anything for health care (ignoring the fact that people will still have to pay for health care through taxation).

But why would health care be considered a universal “right” while food, clothing, and shelter are not?

The answer is that if one of them is considered a right then all will be considered a right.

Furthermore, do I have a “right” to an organ replacement? How about knee surgery? Is that a right? Do I have a right to “free” allergy medicine?

Gee and if private medicine is so great, why don’t we priviatize police, fire, education and roads?

Oh ya, because you’re a total idiot.

NO food, NO clothing, substandard shelter. Medical care that was less than what a pet would get in the US…

Yea, but NIMROD could FEEL good about it.

Healthcare is a right….what a wanker…