Socialized Medicine here it comes

[Pauls' Revere]

Healthcare reform II. I thought Hillary had already "fix" the healthcare system back in the 90's? now it looks like Uncle Teddy is goona fix for us.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_on_go_co/kennedy_health_care_7

From the article:
"It's not a question of arithmetic or accounting, it's a question of priorities," an aide said. "When AIG needs the money, somehow the money is found.

Yeah, we dont need silly math anyway nobody in washington knows what a trillion of anything really is.

From the article:
When Freddie and Fannie need it, somehow the money is found. The theory is they're too big to fail. It can certainly be argued that the health care system is too big to fail, but it's failing for millions of people every day.

That's right, two wrongs make a right arguement. This proves the Democrats can spend just as much if not more than the Republicans and that there is NO difference between them.

From article:
Health care changes under both presidential candidates would be expensive, and the federal government is expected to generate an enormous deficit next year even without incorporating those changes. However, Kennedy is not letting economic woes deter him.

Sure, he has his millions, he's set. While, the rest of us need a deeper hole to climb out of.

WERE SCREWED '08

 

[FountainDew]

I feel really bad for the state of US healthcare for those Americans who can barely afford it. As a Canadian I feel that universal health care is a human right at the most basic level. And many here would disagree with me because its too social an idea for their tastes.

My opinion is that the HMO system is the real culprit and Obama doesn't change the system, he merely gives ppl the money to buy into it.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I feel really bad for the state of US healthcare for those Americans who can barely afford it. As a Canadian I feel that universal health care is a human right at the most basic level. And many here would disagree with me because its too social an idea for their tastes.

My opinion is that the HMO system is the real culprit and Obama doesn't change the system, he merely gives ppl the money to buy into it.

How can healthcare be a human right, when it requires the time and attention of highly trained professionals? Are doctors slaves? Are they required to spend their time healing you, merely because you exist and want treatment? How much treatment is your human right? Does every person have a right to the very best surgeon available, even though there aren't enough of those very best surgeons available to meet demand?

What about extreme cases where the likelihood of succesful treatment is slim? Do people have a right to every treatment option that might possibly be effective, even if the odds are slim, and the expense high? Who should be deciding when it's time to cut losses and throw in the towel on treatment?

An example that I've heard about the Canadian healthcare system, is that the government deems hip replacement surgery to have statistically poor outcomes for patients, and so they don't generally offer it as a treatment option. Canadians who want to undergo the procedure end up having to go outside the national health care system. I guess hip replacement is not a human right. Or something.

 

[FountainDew]

How can healthcare be a human right, when it requires the time and attention of highly trained professionals? Are doctors slaves? Are they required to spend their time healing you, merely because you exist and want treatment? How much treatment is your human right? Does every person have a right to the very best surgeon available, even though there aren't enough of those very best surgeons available to meet demand?

What about extreme cases where the likelihood of succesful treatment is slim? Do people have a right to every treatment option that might possibly be effective, even if the odds are slim, and the expense high? Who should be deciding when it's time to cut losses and throw in the towel on treatment?

An example that I've heard about the Canadian healthcare system, is that the government deems hip replacement surgery to have statistically poor outcomes for patients, and so they don't generally offer it as a treatment option. Canadians who want to undergo the procedure end up having to go outside the national health care system. I guess hip replacement is not a human right. Or something.

The horror stories go both ways. Some Canadians will get the surgeries they need but waiting times are absurdly long. Some Americans live near good surgical facilities, but may be denied access to it. Both systems have their flaw. But what I'm advocating has nothing to do with the details of which system covers more of what or which system has the greatest net loss of life. I'm talking about basic coverage, that should be universal. If you break a leg, or saw off a finger it shouldn't cost you $60,000 to attach it.

I know the biggest question is "well who's gonna pay for it?" In Canada we pay for each other. We have this sort of social responsibility that everyone, including the rich pay a portion of their earnings to provide healthcare to those who we dont even know. All we need to know is that doctors must have the ability to practice on ANYONE who needs help, without denying them for insurance complications.

In times of good health this makes little sense, but in a medical emergency 10/10 times people are really glad medicare doesn't hassle them about bills, insurance, or dumps them out of the hospital cuz they can't pay. Doctors just focus on healing patients and patients just focus on getting better.

This idea obviously goes against the US's idea of free enterprise, but like I've said before... socializing a service, if done right, will benefit the people. For example, you in the US have socialized firemen and policemen right? Wouldn't you say your glad your tax dollars go into paying for firemen to be on the job all the time, when that emergency comes?

So ask yourself the question you asked me: Are policemen/firemen slaves? Are they required to spend their time saving you, merely because you exist and want saving?

Social democracy isn't all bad. There's a good reason all of europe and canada has adopted socialized health care. I wouldn't be so quick to bash it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If socialized medicine is so great, why is it that so many Canadians come to the U.S. for health care? I'll tell you. The waiting lists are so long in Canada for non-life threatening ailments, such as knee surgery, that by the time your name comes up, your knee will be toast.

Social democracy isn't all bad. There's a good reason all of europe and canada has adopted socialized health care. I wouldn't be so quick to bash it.

Just because the rest of the world does something, does not mean the U.S. needs to follow suit. Once upon a time, the U.S. was the beacon for liberty in the world. It was totalitarianism that was the typical in the rest of the world. So, I don't give a &^%R$$T^ what the rest of the world does. That should have little to no impact on the decision we make for ourselves.

 

[revolutionist]

I think health care is best distributed through markets, just like most services. Police Officers and are different, because the whole purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property from external force or fraud from other individuals.

Fire protection is also different, considering that Fire poses a clear and present danger to the general public, and if not put out, would soon engulf many more buildings. That too is a legitimate form of government.

Health Care, on the other hand, is not legitimate because it doesn't meet the criteria listed above. It does not protect life liberty and property from other individuals. It protects life from pathogens or accidents. Also, an ill person does not pose a clear and present danger to the General Public unless it is a deadly biological attack/epidemic. It does not meet the criteria of protecting individuals from other individuals nor does it protect the general public from a clear and present danger.

 

[SeanEdwards]

So ask yourself the question you asked me: Are policemen/firemen slaves? Are they required to spend their time saving you, merely because you exist and want saving?

Every person has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that's it. You don't have a human right to demand that other humans serve you, because that would deny that other person of their inalienable rights.

And firemen and police are not compelled to save you. It's their job to save, and they agreed to try and save people, but ultimately it's their call. Firemen will watch your house burn. Cops will wait for gunfire to cease before entering. It's not proper to describe access to such services as human rights, because they are not on the same level as your fundamental right to live and be free.

 

[FountainDew]

Lol, this is where the differences between Canadian and American culture start to show. I don't disagree with your interpretation of fundamental rights, and I know that its absurd of me to suggest that the right to health is also a fundamental right. Because its not. Such a delicate issue can easily be corrupted. And believe me when I tell you, I know about medicare corruption here.

You're right that you can't include a kind of human service as a fundamental right (cuz thats obviously slavery), and I should have reworded what i said earlier. I meant to say that having basic health coverage should be a right for citizens of a nation. Whether its socialized or privatized is up to the country, and thats why Canada will never impose our system on the US (we wouldn't even if we had the capability to). However, the US system has been trying hard to dismantle Canadian medicare by means of lawsuites in the name of NAFTA. Which is why Canadians thoroughly hate NAFTA. What right does one sovereign country have to change our right to health in another sovereign country for the sake of profit? None, simple as that. Our people wrote a law saying no one can ever benefit from medicare in Canada. It is non-profit and off limits to the market. It's like trying to sell friendship by bottling it and putting a price tag; you simply cannot do that here. Friendship, like medicare, may not be essential to live (most of the time), but it is extremely important for the well-being of any individual. Whether that's controversial or not, it is the sole reason Canadian's are happy with our free availability of medicare (the general consensus).

Fire protection is different... Fire poses a clear and present danger... if not put out, would soon engulf many more buildings...

Health Care, on the other hand, is not legitimate... It does not protect life...

My interpretation is that a part of protecting life starts by protecting the individual's health. Because a healthy individual is one that has the capacity to concern oneself with work, family, economic and political issues. Being healthy, educated, and undistracted by certain media are the only ways we keep our government from controlling us. Believe me, the majority of Canadians would get up and start a revolution if medicare truly became privatized. We are like France, the UK, and the rest of europe in that we believe social medicine is healthy, so long as the people holding the picket signs are also healthy enough to make proper decisions.

And its not some exclusive "red flag" movement; its a world movement. The reason its so popular is because it works. People have tried it and realized, on the whole, its a good thing for everyone to be covered where no one is left out. The World Health Organization recognizes the models setup by parts of Europe and Canada are producing positive effects in the rest of the world, especially China, Rwanda, Chile, and Portugal.

Equity of access to health services of all types is key to universal coverage policy. High levels of out-of-pocket payments, including user fees, are still pervasive in many countries, limiting the ability of people to use services... problem of out-of-pocket payments, that many households in 15 African countries cope by borrowing or by selling assets, i.e. they use their savings and go into debt, thereby restricting long-term economic survival... Moving towards prepayment... would allow countries to eventually wean themselves off international donor funding, essentially involving the better use and management of domestic resources.

I'm not trying to say health reform in America is essential or even that any of you need to agree with me. But I will defend universal health care as its proven itself to cover all people of different nations without discriminating denial letters from Cigna, Aetna, Kaiser Permanente, or any other insurance company saying you're "too young" for cancer, that removing a brain tumor is "too experimental," and that a yeast infection is a "serious" pre-existing condition that wasn't mentioned, therefore all coverage is void for this arbitrary surgery. These are trivial when a life is at risk, and no doctor should have to make a choice of who he is allowed to help.

Reference:
Bulletin of the World Health Organization (BLT)
Volume 86, Number 11, November, 817-908

 

[Bruno]

Every person has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that's it. You don't have a human right to demand that other humans serve you, because that would deny that other person of their inalienable rights.

And firemen and police are not compelled to save you. It's their job to save, and they agreed to try and save people, but ultimately it's their call. Firemen will watch your house burn. Cops will wait for gunfire to cease before entering. It's not proper to describe access to such services as human rights, because they are not on the same level as your fundamental right to live and be free.

Additionally, firefighters and police officers are paid with local taxes, not federal. Some townships decide to pool resources together to accomplish this goal. Others have volunteer fire departments, which have less of a burden on their taxpayers.

We have seen time and time again that our federal government can do very little better than the free markets can. If we trust them with our health care as much as we have with this bailout, and the results are the same, we will end up worse off than we are now.

 

[Bruno]

These are trivial when a life is at risk, and no doctor should have to make a choice of who he is allowed to help.

Reference:
Bulletin of the World Health Organization (BLT)
Volume 86, Number 11, November, 817-908

Doctors already are required to help people in an emergency in cases of life or death.

But why should we pay for expensive health care for smokers that chose not to get health care?
Why should we subsidize health care for lower income individuals that will just spend the money they save on booze, smokes, and junk food?

Annectodal: I was at a convenience store the other day, and watched a 20 year old mother pay for her two packs of cigarettes. two red bulls, and two lottery tickets with cash, then use her Iowa Food Card to pay for some convenience store sandwiches and a few bottles of expensive iced tea. Why should all tax payers subsidize her health care as well, when we already are subsidizing her cigarrette and red bull habits?

 

[WRellim]

The horror stories go both ways. Some Canadians will get the surgeries they need but waiting times are absurdly long.

Hmmm ABSURDLY LONG.

Does that mean "absurdly" in the range of the person's health will probably decline or complications set in, ...or they may just be plain old "dead" before their government-rationed "surgery" comes around... but I'm sure THAT is not a problem or anything.

Some Americans live near good surgical facilities, but may be denied access to it.

And if instead you're dead because you not someone "important" and waiting for your "ticket" to come up ... I mean does it really matter?

But oh, no... THAT is somehow not "being denied" -- no, of course not, I mean, really, the poor sap WOULD have gotten his surgery -- if he had just managed to survive long enough to get it... Oh well, not our fault, we had him scheduled for surgery ...next year.

Both systems have their flaw. But what I'm advocating has nothing to do with the details of which system covers more of what or which system has the greatest net loss of life. I'm talking about basic coverage, that should be universal. If you break a leg, or saw off a finger it shouldn't cost you $60,000 to attach it.

Ah, now there you are falling victim to YOUR government's propaganda.

Despite the BS you've been told, if someone breaks a leg or saws off a finger in America -- they CAN and DO go to virtually any emergency room and get basic treatment... regardless of whether they have insurance.

And the bill might be several hundred or even a thousand or two... but $60,000? That's just an outright fabrication.

I know the biggest question is "well who's gonna pay for it?" In Canada we pay for each other. We have this sort of social responsibility that everyone, including the rich pay a portion of their earnings to provide healthcare to those who we dont even know. All we need to know is that doctors must have the ability to practice on ANYONE who needs help, without denying them for insurance complications.

Blah blah blah blah blah... "In Canada, we're GOOD little socialists."

Drink that Maple-syrup-laced Kool-Aid.

Tell you what, WE won't tell CANADIANS what to do... and YOU don't tell us... OK.

In times of good health this makes little sense, but in a medical emergency 10/10 times people are really glad medicare doesn't hassle them about bills, insurance, or dumps them out of the hospital cuz they can't pay. Doctors just focus on healing patients and patients just focus on getting better.

This idea obviously goes against the US's idea of free enterprise, but like I've said before... socializing a service, if done right, will benefit the people. For example, you in the US have socialized firemen and policemen right? Wouldn't you say your glad your tax dollars go into paying for firemen to be on the job all the time, when that emergency comes?

So ask yourself the question you asked me: Are policemen/firemen slaves? Are they required to spend their time saving you, merely because you exist and want saving?

Where I live, the police are pretty RARE... and about all they do is write traffic tickets and supervise at accidents (AFTER the fact)... for which they are MORE than well compensated (cushy benes and overtime pay and state pensions, etc).

The Firemen? Around here they are all volunteers... just like the paramedics and ambulance crews. No "socialism" is needed.

Social democracy isn't all bad. There's a good reason all of europe and canada has adopted socialized health care. I wouldn't be so quick to bash it.

Hey, again... good on you... GLAD you live where you want to... NOW BUTT OUT!

Truth is that our system WAS working just fine -- then the GOVERNMENT stepped in and between MediCare and the Byzantine regulations and "incentives" for HMO's and insurance -- they FUBAR'ed the whole thing! The answer is not MORE government, but LESS.



Have you even LISTENED to anything Ron Paul was saying about how medicine worked in the early 1960's and before -- the PRE-MediCare world?

Seriously, my father AND his sister had their tonsils removed in the PRIVATE HOSPITAL back in the 1940's -- the total bill? $12.50 combined for BOTH surgeries (plus the overnight hospital room, etc -- that was the WHOLE BILL!) -- that was about 1/3 of an ounce of Gold (about $300 in today's money).

When my cousins had THEIR tonsils removed (same operation) in the 1950's, my uncle tells me the cost was STILL under $100 each.

By the time *I* had my tonsils removed (same operation) as a kid in the late 1960's the cost was less than $500 and the bill was a single page you could read and easily understand ... what changed? MEDICARE! (There were no HMO's yet at that time, so you can't blame them... unless you're an ignorant Canadian who believes Canadian government propaganda.)

Fast forward to the 1990's when my nephew had HIS Tonsils removed (still same operation -- same technique, same 1 night hospital room) -- only NOW the cost was around $5,000 and the bill was 5 pages of undecipherable gobbldygook "Government mandated billoing codes".

I'm told that today a Tonsillectomy will be billed for anywhere from $8,000 to $20,000 depending on what they all throw onto that bill.

Now in truth, it is the SAME DAMN OPERATION as before -- nothing has really changed. What HAS changed is that the hospital's now have to make THAT operation help cover the costs of price-controlled MediCare and government induced HMO-price-controlled operations. So that same basic operation gets OVERBILLED by about 10x (because the "room" cost underwrites everything else).


Again, the answer is not MORE government interference, but LESS.

Oh, and everything you've been told about American health insurance being so expensive? It's sheer BS. For a middle-aged working person, a "catastrophic" health care insurance policy (meaning "insurance" to cover the BIG unexpected things... not to cover office visits and "checkups") can be had for around $1,000 to $2,000 a year. (Mine costs me $1,200 a year with a $5K deductible... pays anything over $5K in a year, everything underneath is MY PROBLEM).

The reason everyone complains about health insurance being so "expensive" is that they want it to cover "EVERYTHING" -- and that everything includes 10 trips a year to the emergency room because junior has the sniffles and Mom is all panicky!

Seriously, if we expected our CAR insurance to "cover everything" -- oil-changes, new tires, engine & transmission repair; all the standard "maintenance" things -- then car insurance would cost MORE than the car.

People's expectations of getting everything they want for FREE are the problem.

On top of everything else... that kind of greed and irresponsibility makes OTHER people (like me) MUCH less charitable (or even ABLE to be charitable) than we otherwise might be.

TANSTAAFL.

 

[theoakman]

Ah, now there you are falling victim to YOUR government's propaganda.

Despite the BS you've been told, if someone breaks a leg or saws off a finger in America -- they CAN and DO go to virtually any emergency room and get basic treatment... regardless of whether they have insurance.

And the bill might be several hundred or even a thousand or two... but $60,000? That's just an outright fabrication.



Blah blah blah blah blah... "In Canada, we're GOOD little socialists."

Drink that Maple-syrup-laced Kool-Aid.

Tell you what, WE won't tell CANADIANS what to do... and YOU don't tell us... OK.



Where I live, the police are pretty RARE... and about all they do is write traffic tickets and supervise at accidents (AFTER the fact)... for which they are MORE than well compensated (cushy benes and overtime pay and state pensions, etc).

The Firemen? Around here they are all volunteers... just like the paramedics and ambulance crews. No "socialism" is needed.



Hey, again... good on you... GLAD you live where you want to... NOW BUTT OUT!

My father is a physician. For emergency room care for the dumbest things, bills can go as high as 20k. I do know someone personally who was charged 22k for getting an IV for being dehydrated. Here's the thing. They bill that much universally to everyone because medicaid/medicare and the insurance companies will only pay out 5-10% of the entire bill. It's all a facade. Even though they charged you 22k, if you offer them a thousand dollars cash, they'll take it in a heartbeat and consider your payment fulfilled. The idea that healthcare is unaffordable is a facade. If you are willing to wheel and deal with physicians, you can pay cash for all your basic healthcare needs and end up paying a mere fraction of what you would by obtaining insurance.

 

[FountainDew]

Tell you what, WE won't tell CANADIANS what to do... and YOU don't tell us... OK.

Deal. Oh wait, you're not living up to your end of the bargain. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/september/naftabased_suit_thr.php

Whatever. You wanna start a fight cuz your drunk and pissed then go out to a game. I never said i wanted to change America, but if u wanna put words in my mouth, then I should be allowed to put shit in yours. I guess you never heard of overinflated billing have you? Of course not. Either read theoakman's comment or read some of your more local news. Either way just read. You still know how to read right? Apparently its good for you.

Aint life a bitch.

But why should we pay for expensive health care for smokers that chose not to get health care?
Why should we subsidize health care for lower income individuals that will just spend the money they save on booze, smokes, and junk food?

Dunno, you shouldn't. Your own views tell you that you should be self sustained and independant of other people. Thats honorable in its own right. But our view says we are a community that has the capacity to take care of our own nation and if we can find money for $250 Billion scandals then we can find money to help the sick. So I dont mean to disrespect your view, but I'd like mine to be considered as well.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Prepare for the MANDATORY and MONITORED diet and daily exercise regime of the Health Nazis. Just gotta keep those sheeple fit and healthy after all, it's ALL for their own good and lowers the overall health costs for the "chosen" few. Don't forget to take your meds.

 

[FountainDew]

Prepare for the MANDATORY and MONITORED diet and daily exercise regime of the Health Nazis. Just gotta keep those sheeple fit and healthy after all, it's ALL for their own good and lowers the overall health costs for the "chosen" few.

Hehe only if you actually believe everything your government tells you. Otherwise, I'm sticking to my rights, specifically my Charter of Health Freedom, which says I have sovereignty over my own nutrition. I mention the words social democracy and everyone thinks dictator instantly. Jeez, is that the state of people's opinions these days?

 

[WRellim]

Doctors already are required to help people in an emergency in cases of life or death.

But why should we pay for expensive health care for smokers that chose not to get health care?

Why should we subsidize health care for lower income individuals that will just spend the money they save on booze, smokes, and junk food?

Annectodal: I was at a convenience store the other day, and watched a 20 year old mother pay for her two packs of cigarettes. two red bulls, and two lottery tickets with cash, then use her Iowa Food Card to pay for some convenience store sandwiches and a few bottles of expensive iced tea. Why should all tax payers subsidize her health care as well, when we already are subsidizing her cigarrette and red bull habits?

Amen to that.

My favorite anecdote was from a few years back. This "gang" off senior citizens would stop by the local pharmacy once every month as a group after getting the Social Security checks -- and what did they buy? No, not medicine, not even snacks... Nope, they each bought like $100 to $200 worth of lottery tickets -- the instant-win type -- which they would proceed to stand around and "scratch-off"until they got a "winner" which they would instantly cash... and then use the winning to... you got it... buy MORE lottery tickets, which they would "scratch-off" ...ad nauseum. The whole thing would last maybe 1/2 hour before they were "all done" -- then (having cumulatively LOST about $1,000 or more) they would adjourn across the street to the local diner (where they had a 15% "Senior Citizen Discount" of course) for coffee with pie or donuts -- the waitresses all hated them because they would demand coffee refills for hours and leave pennies and nickels for tips... because see, they were "poor" old people. (Then they'd walk over to the marina an go out sailing on their yachts.)

And THOSE are the people I always picture as being the ones who gripe and moan that the latest COLA increase in their social security payment wasn't enough -- or that their co-payment with medicare for their Viagra (and their 15 other "prescription" placebo pills) charges them too much....

Now ask me if I really feel charitable to them?

Seriously, is that even a real question.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Hehe only if you actually believe everything your government tells you. Otherwise, I'm sticking to my rights, specifically my Charter of Health Freedom, which says I have sovereignty over my own nutrition. I mention the words social democracy and everyone thinks dictator instantly. Jeez, is that the state of people's opinions these days?

Well, that's just what the socialist's historic propaganda falsely calls it, so whatcha gonna do?

"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting." -- Charles Bukowski

 

[WRellim]

My father is a physician. For emergency room care for the dumbest things, bills can go as high as 20k. I do know someone personally who was charged 22k for getting an IV for being dehydrated. Here's the thing. They bill that much universally to everyone because medicaid/medicare and the insurance companies will only pay out 5-10% of the entire bill. It's all a facade. Even though they charged you 22k, if you offer them a thousand dollars cash, they'll take it in a heartbeat and consider your payment fulfilled. The idea that healthcare is unaffordable is a facade. If you are willing to wheel and deal with physicians, you can pay cash for all your basic healthcare needs and end up paying a mere fraction of what you would by obtaining insurance.

BINGO!

A little over a decade ago I went to an emergency room after a bicycle accident. XRays, etc -- and told them ahead of time I had NO health INSURANCE (self-employed and business had been bad in the post 1987 recession) -- total bill was under $1,000 including the XRay's.

As long as you avoid the "ROOM costs" the rest of the stuff is NOT unreasonable.. especially if you offer them easy billing and cash payment (or even just a 20$ downpayment with the balance in 60 days).

In my experience, the same has always been true for Dentists -- when they know they can avoid the whole insurance-billing cycle crapola, they give me anywhere from a 15% to a 50% discount (depending on the procedure/timing, etc).

 

[WRellim]

Deal. Oh wait, you're not living up to your end of the bargain. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/september/naftabased_suit_thr.php

Whatever. You wanna start a fight cuz your drunk and pissed then go out to a game. I never said i wanted to change America, but if u wanna put words in my mouth, then I should be allowed to put shit in yours. I guess you never heard of overinflated billing have you? Of course not. Either read theoakman's comment or read some of your more local news. Either way just read. You still know how to read right? Apparently its good for you.

NAFTA wasn't promoted or passed by me.

But YOU (and yes honey, it WAS specifically YOU) were in here, in our faces not ten posts back, telling us that WE have to consider health care as a "fundamental right."

Yeah, you backtracked on it later... but you (personally) spouted it all the same.

Aint life a bitch.

And sometimes you just have them as neighbors to the North, eh.

 

[Bruno]

Dunno, you shouldn't. Your own views tell you that you should be self sustained and independant of other people. Thats honorable in its own right. But our view says we are a community that has the capacity to take care of our own nation and if we can find money for $250 Billion scandals then we can find money to help the sick. So I dont mean to disrespect your view, but I'd like mine to be considered as well.

I respect your view, I just disagree with it. And for the record, I was completely against the now $1 Trillion or more bailout, so my view is not contradictory in that regard.

When people are given things for free, it disincents them to work harder.

My personal experience: I was on food stamps for one month when my son was born twelve years ago. I had paid into the system for 10 years, and felt guilty even then asking for help. I received $278 for one month's worth of food, more money than I had ever spent on groceries in my life (having done it on my own, I survived often on Ramen noodles, and mac and cheese, etc.)

The next month, I went to reapply. I had worked a few extra shifts as a server, and was able to bust my ass and make some more money. I was told I was $12 over the threshold. That's right, $12. I asked how much my food stamp allotment would be for this month. I was told, "Zero. You don't qualify."

What lesson does that teach the majority of people who live off of the system? It teaches them to work less, because you get more. Don't take the 2nd job. Don't work the extra shifts and hours. Don't do anything that puts you over that threshold. Instead, stay at home, and dine on your fatty foods provided to you by the hardworking taxpayers that are subsidizing your lifestyle.

I, instead, chose to work harder and put in the extra hours.

The problem is in semantics that fool the public. People say, "The GOVERNMENT should pay for this or that." We are foolish for talking this way. You should insert "My friends, family, and neighbors should pay for me to do this or that." It's a whole different perspective that is lost on most people with their hand out.