OP your story is very moving. A sick child is a heartbreaking situation. No one wants a child to suffer, and I wish your child the best possible outcome.

There are several questions that need to be answered with this example:

1. If healthcare is an entitlement, are we entitled to have any and all treatment that we want? There is a difference between giving any and all treatment and alleviating suffering.

2. Resources ARE limited, even with pooled resources from taxes. Resources are limited by merely the number of hospital beds available, the time and appointment slots for specialists and other providers, the amount of money for equipment, facilities, and medication. Who decides the cost/benefit of treatment? Who decides who gets priority treatment?

As an aside, the portable care act, passed years ago, insures patients will not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if continuous coverage is maintained. It is very important that consumers are aware of their rights and obligations in using and maintaining health insurance.

I think people imagine that Medicare for all means you will get any treatment that you desire at any time. That is not what it means. In fact, Medicare for all will have a strict formulary, strict requirements for qualifying for certain treatments, strict requirements for accessing specialty care, and cost/benefit analysis driven care. OP, your daughter would likely benefit from such a plan, but there will be other patients who would be losers.

OP, understandably, you want the best for your daughter, but a planning a comprehensive healthcare strategy can’t be accomplished through an emotional lense. FWIW, I am republican who wants some form of high deductible universal catastrophic coverage for all and a separate government pool for high risk coverage, for patients like your daughter. I also think insurance should be uncoupled from employment for greater coverage security.

Obamacare was very ambitious and got some things right, but it also is very flawed. It is flawed in it’s cost shifting. It is flawed in it’s failure to control costs. So, as part of a community, OP, I want your daughter to have care. However, I do not believe Obamacare achieves care equity or is the best use of our community resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please vote for Democrats.

My daughter has a rare disease, and I have posted before. Our insurance has paid over $150,000 in surgeries for her, to try to give her a normal life again.

If the Republicans stay in power, insurance companies may regain the ability to reject customers who have “pre-existing” conditions, and she would be one of those people.

She is 7. She needs medical care. We are not wealthy and paying for her treatment out of pocket would financially ruin us, if we even managed it.

Please don’t vote for the people who are going to ruin my daughter ‘s ability to live a normal life. Vote Democratic.

Move to TX, who will cover you regardless of income.

Well this is a straight up lie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise of this thread is utter nonsense.

That’s what you had to post???

Really???

Yes. That's what I posted. Because it's the truth.

So why are you on this thread if you have nothing to contribute? Feel free to explain why my child’s horrible disease and medical needs are nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise of this thread is utter nonsense.

That’s what you had to post???

Really???

Yes. That's what I posted. Because it's the truth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: taking “other people’s money.” This characterization of taxation for the public good is so toxic. Your money is not your “freedom.” The government has the right to tax you for the good of the public. Your taxes pay for roads you never use, research for diseases that never affect you, wars that have nothing to do with your safety. But somehow paying for healthcare is “immoral.”

This dummy is the same guy who used to call taxes “rape,” or the dummy who kept going on and on that universal healthcare was unconstitutional. Now his bizarre argument is that it’s immoral. Do you even understand what moral means?

My money is not my freedom, I agree, my money is my personal property. And yes the government has been granted broad powers by the US Constitution to tax. Similarly the US government has broad powers to spend under the "general welfare" clause. All of this is right. Certainly my taxes have paid for roads I do not use, and paid for research that I don't directly enjoy. The difference here is that many of these programs were put in place with the rationale that these contribute to a greater good benefit the society as a whole. No roads were built because someone claimed "I need a road and someone else needs to pay for it". No scientific research was done by claiming "this discovery needs to be funded by someone else". Yet we have posters in this thread arguing that we need health care laws because other people need to pay for their health care costs. It's not immoral for the government to pay for health care, it's immoral for someone to think that they are entitled to other people's money or labor to pay for their own healthcare.

Look, maybe it's all a big misunderstanding, maybe people on this thread *DONT* feel they are entitled to other people's money. They just want the nation to come together to see that this is for the greater good and do it out of a sense of collective wish to help each other. But then, why so many posts arguing against me when I questioned the sense of entitlement expressed by PPs?

Also, having a healthy populace is just as important to the common good as roads. I am trying to engage with your reasoning pp but it’s just not very strong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: taking “other people’s money.” This characterization of taxation for the public good is so toxic. Your money is not your “freedom.” The government has the right to tax you for the good of the public. Your taxes pay for roads you never use, research for diseases that never affect you, wars that have nothing to do with your safety. But somehow paying for healthcare is “immoral.”

This dummy is the same guy who used to call taxes “rape,” or the dummy who kept going on and on that universal healthcare was unconstitutional. Now his bizarre argument is that it’s immoral. Do you even understand what moral means?

My money is not my freedom, I agree, my money is my personal property. And yes the government has been granted broad powers by the US Constitution to tax. Similarly the US government has broad powers to spend under the "general welfare" clause. All of this is right. Certainly my taxes have paid for roads I do not use, and paid for research that I don't directly enjoy. The difference here is that many of these programs were put in place with the rationale that these contribute to a greater good benefit the society as a whole. No roads were built because someone claimed "I need a road and someone else needs to pay for it". No scientific research was done by claiming "this discovery needs to be funded by someone else". Yet we have posters in this thread arguing that we need health care laws because other people need to pay for their health care costs. It's not immoral for the government to pay for health care, it's immoral for someone to think that they are entitled to other people's money or labor to pay for their own healthcare.

Look, maybe it's all a big misunderstanding, maybe people on this thread *DONT* feel they are entitled to other people's money. They just want the nation to come together to see that this is for the greater good and do it out of a sense of collective wish to help each other. But then, why so many posts arguing against me when I questioned the sense of entitlement expressed by PPs?

Your entire premise is invalid and is completely off topic. Obamacare was passed already. “The collective” has already decided that sick children should keep their insurance. Polls show people like it, particularly the part about pre-existing conditions. Republicans are the ones who want to re-litigate this issue literally over and over again.

Anonymous wrote:Re: taking “other people’s money.” This characterization of taxation for the public good is so toxic. Your money is not your “freedom.” The government has the right to tax you for the good of the public. Your taxes pay for roads you never use, research for diseases that never affect you, wars that have nothing to do with your safety. But somehow paying for healthcare is “immoral.”

This dummy is the same guy who used to call taxes “rape,” or the dummy who kept going on and on that universal healthcare was unconstitutional. Now his bizarre argument is that it’s immoral. Do you even understand what moral means?

My money is not my freedom, I agree, my money is my personal property. And yes the government has been granted broad powers by the US Constitution to tax. Similarly the US government has broad powers to spend under the "general welfare" clause. All of this is right. Certainly my taxes have paid for roads I do not use, and paid for research that I don't directly enjoy. The difference here is that many of these programs were put in place with the rationale that these contribute to a greater good benefit the society as a whole. No roads were built because someone claimed "I need a road and someone else needs to pay for it". No scientific research was done by claiming "this discovery needs to be funded by someone else". Yet we have posters in this thread arguing that we need health care laws because other people need to pay for their health care costs. It's not immoral for the government to pay for health care, it's immoral for someone to think that they are entitled to other people's money or labor to pay for their own healthcare.

Look, maybe it's all a big misunderstanding, maybe people on this thread *DONT* feel they are entitled to other people's money. They just want the nation to come together to see that this is for the greater good and do it out of a sense of collective wish to help each other. But then, why so many posts arguing against me when I questioned the sense of entitlement expressed by PPs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is your daughter’s life expectancy with ongoing medical treatment?

Not OP but why should it matter?

My own daughter has a chronic condition that is fine with maintenance treatment over a lifetime. The taxes she will pay will far out weigh the cost of her treatment. Without treatment she will go blind and cost the tax payers a fair chunk of change.

It matters because some lives are width less than others. You may be optimistic about the progression of her illness and her ability to pay taxes that justifies her ongoing treatment.

Seriously? Whose life is worth less and whose is worth more?

This thread is so interesting.

But if the GOP don't win we will have more pipe bombs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is your daughter’s life expectancy with ongoing medical treatment?

Not OP but why should it matter?

My own daughter has a chronic condition that is fine with maintenance treatment over a lifetime. The taxes she will pay will far out weigh the cost of her treatment. Without treatment she will go blind and cost the tax payers a fair chunk of change.

It matters because some lives are width less than others. You may be optimistic about the progression of her illness and her ability to pay taxes that justifies her ongoing treatment.

Anonymous wrote:Re: taking “other people’s money.” This characterization of taxation for the public good is so toxic. Your money is not your “freedom.” The government has the right to tax you for the good of the public. Your taxes pay for roads you never use, research for diseases that never affect you, wars that have nothing to do with your safety. But somehow paying for healthcare is “immoral.”

This dummy is the same guy who used to call taxes “rape,” or the dummy who kept going on and on that universal healthcare was unconstitutional. Now his bizarre argument is that it’s immoral. Do you even understand what moral means?

I challenge these people to spend a day--heck even 15 minutes--not utilizing government resources. Hint: you won't be able to do it, because even the road right outside your house is maintained by your local government. Point being, government waste notwithstanding, taxes are a critical way for governments to be able to maintain infrastructure, schools, ensure our water is safe to drink, etc.

Re: taking “other people’s money.” This characterization of taxation for the public good is so toxic. Your money is not your “freedom.” The government has the right to tax you for the good of the public. Your taxes pay for roads you never use, research for diseases that never affect you, wars that have nothing to do with your safety. But somehow paying for healthcare is “immoral.”

This dummy is the same guy who used to call taxes “rape,” or the dummy who kept going on and on that universal healthcare was unconstitutional. Now his bizarre argument is that it’s immoral. Do you even understand what moral means?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Do you not understand how society works? We all share money/resources on so many levels, because it is more efficient and effective to do so.

On the other hand, if you think everything you have is due solely to your own ingenuity and hard work, please sit down. No one is an island. What you have is a combination of where you were born and raised, who your birth parents were, who raised you, what resources they had, sheer luck and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with whatever hard work you may have done. Our society has individuals who were born with great advantage all the way down to people born with zero advantage and, rather, great disadvantages to overcome. So much inequity. It seems only fair that there should be some government programs that help those born, through no fault of their own, in situations of disadvatage and to help those born, through no fault of their own, with significant health challenges.

Stop putting up strawman positions that I don't hold. I benefit from the privileges of this great nation, our great state, and the wonderful people in our neighborhood, so I gladly contribute my share in taxes in support of the programs and policies that the people have voted into place. I don't think it's too much to engage in a discussion as to *HOW* we arrive at these collective decisions. The US became one of the most well developed nation in the world not because of heavy handed government enforced sharing of money. Our history is one of low taxes, limited federal powers, and deference to state/local government and closely knit communities for solutions to increasingly personal and individual problems. The opposite formula, as exemplified by the former USSR, China under strict communism, and more recently the failing country of Venezuela has shown this way of thinking to be unsustainable and is a cause for widespread suffering and death of people living under it. I understand the intention is good: we all want to improve the lives and happiness of people in the US and the rest of the world, but the socialist idea that someone is entitled to the money of others under the guise of the greater good is not the way to get there.

Venezuela - DRINK!

I know, right. USSR, China, Venezuela. Not Canada, UK, and Australia. Talk about strawmen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Wolves don't kill their wounded nor do lions, they feed them until a wounded one gets well or dies ..if a humpback whale is injured and can't surface to take a breath of air, other whales elevate him to the surface....
Even animals know that they have to help each other to survive...unlike some upright walking specimens.

Not really the same thing as what's being discussed here. Some of the posters on this thread feel they are entitled to other people's money. The animals in your examples may receive voluntary assistance from others in their population, but they don't have a sense of entitlement. Similarly, a group of people voting to decide to establish a social benefit program is different from people believing that they are entitled to receiving other people's money.

You have been prattling about this for a while on this thread. Give us exact example of how some posters feel they are entitled to other people's money. I have seen examples where people believe they deserve access to healthcare when they are sick and I agree with them. No resident of a wealthy nation like America not have healthcare, home, food or education. As a country we have the means to tend to all our people and must care to do that.

I have never seen anyone making a claim on someone's else's money. Show us example or stfu.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not just for healthcare, but I don't understand the mentality that anyone is entitled to the money of others for solving personal problems and that this entitlement should be enforced through force of federal law.

Wolves don't kill their wounded nor do lions, they feed them until a wounded one gets well or dies ..if a humpback whale is injured and can't surface to take a breath of air, other whales elevate him to the surface....
Even animals know that they have to help each other to survive...unlike some upright walking specimens.

Not really the same thing as what's being discussed here. Some of the posters on this thread feel they are entitled to other people's money. The animals in your examples may receive voluntary assistance from others in their population, but they don't have a sense of entitlement. Similarly, a group of people voting to decide to establish a social benefit program is different from people believing that they are entitled to receiving other people's money.