In other words, what you're advocating is another income transferrence scheme, to move money from those who happen to be either healthy or make more than the median to those who are either ill or make less than the median.
Ultimately, national health care simply constitutes a means of transferring money from the healthy to the ill, from those that can afford it to those who cannot.
Why should the healthy pay for the ill?
Why should those who earn more, pay more for the same level of service?
>>>Maybe he was talking to a potential employer? You really don't know for sure. You are making assumptions without facts. <<<
Uhhhhh...the point was...if you don't have money to eat...how the he&& do you have money for a cell phone?
AND if you only have so much money...wouldn't you think you'd pony up the cash for a meal instead of a minutes package?!
Again...it's an issue of personal responsibility and PRIORITIES.
If someone can't prioritize and take care of their healthcare (in lieu of cell phones, iPods, etc) then I'm sure as he&& not gonna pay for their healthcare out of MY hard earned money.
I believe public education is protected under the Constitution.
Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
"I believe public education is protected under the Constitution."
Really? Which article?
ETA: not that I completely disagree with your comparison, I just don't remember education being defined as a right, or as being protected under the constitution and wanted to look it up. TIA.
Pages
It can't operate the same way for a very basic reason.
In other words, what you're advocating is another income transferrence scheme, to move money from those who happen to be either healthy or make more than the median to those who are either ill or make less than the median.
Ultimately, national health care simply constitutes a means of transferring money from the healthy to the ill, from those that can afford it to those who cannot.
Why should the healthy pay for the ill?
Why should those who earn more, pay more for the same level of service?
>>>Maybe he was talking to a potential employer? You really don't know for sure. You are making assumptions without facts. <<<
Uhhhhh...the point was...if you don't have money to eat...how the he&& do you have money for a cell phone?
AND if you only have so much money...wouldn't you think you'd pony up the cash for a meal instead of a minutes package?!
Again...it's an issue of personal responsibility and PRIORITIES.
If someone can't prioritize and take care of their healthcare (in lieu of cell phones, iPods, etc) then I'm sure as he&& not gonna pay for their healthcare out of MY hard earned money.
I believe public education is protected under the Constitution.
Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
A universal health plan does not have to be modeled like Canada or UK (which both
"I believe public education is protected under the Constitution."
Really? Which article?
ETA: not that I completely disagree with your comparison, I just don't remember education being defined as a right, or as being protected under the constitution and wanted to look it up. TIA.
Edited 8/5/2008 5:30 pm ET by bizzymomoffive
Pages