Discussion » Questions » Health and Wellness » What's better: Covering everybody and waiting a few days for treatment, or having people die in the street?
excon

What's better: Covering everybody and waiting a few days for treatment, or having people die in the street?

Posted - February 17, 2020
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    Covering everyone and having enough facillities TO cover everyone.  That's better.
      February 17, 2020 11:17 AM MST
    5

  • 1152
    And if the United States paid the same per capita as other non-s**thole countries with decent health care, instead of DOUBLE, we could probably afford it relatively easily.

    Of course, the White SupremacyChristian Dominionist Warriors would have to give up their desire to deny care to Sp*cs, N*gg*rs and F*gs...oops, forget to use Dog Whistle...I mean "illegal immigrants", "welfare queens", and "moral degenerates", but it could be done.
      February 19, 2020 9:44 AM MST
    0

  • 7280
    Depends on who those people who are dying in the street are---there are some people that one could make a reasoned case deserve to die, and where is immaterial.
      February 17, 2020 12:24 PM MST
    2

  • 1152
    I suggest you rethink that position.

    You do NOT want to go down that slippery slope.

    Unless you really do, in which case I cannot comment further without violating the TOS.
      February 19, 2020 9:38 AM MST
    0

  • 4624
    Are you talking about the Coronavirus outbreak?

    If so the answer's obvious; to cover everyone infected or at risk and wait.

    If I'd been caught somewhere where I'd caught or come into contact with it
    I would not mind what I had to endure in order to keep others safe.

      February 17, 2020 12:50 PM MST
    3

  • 6023
    Despite many people's idealistic wishes ... there is no way to cover everyone and have "a few days" wait.
    Try making an appointment with a doctor, now.
    You'll probably have to schedule at least 3 months in advance.
    That is one of the real reason people go to the Emergency Dept or Urgent Care Clinic for minor things like colds.
    They want a prescription to deal with it - and can't wait the time required for their doctor to schedule a visit.

    Of course, maybe the Democrats plan on even more socialization of healthcare than we're being told.
    Maybe they will declare a national health "war" and "draft" people to become healthcare workers, to reduce the current shortage.
    Heck, I'd favor forgiving student loans for healthcare workers if it's pro-rated over a period of years of them working in that career.
        (say, 2 years working in healthcare degree field for every year of student loan)
      February 17, 2020 1:25 PM MST
    2


  • Ever since "Katrina" I assumed it was national policy to just let people die and watch the bodies float downstream or perhaps bake in the sun till they stink up the place.  God bless America and God help us all.  SMH!
      February 17, 2020 2:07 PM MST
    3

  • 44649
    We will be stuck with peeps dying. The medical insurance has its own insurance against socialized medicine. They are called lobbyists. They will ensure congress will not pass such silly legislation.
      February 17, 2020 2:58 PM MST
    2

  • 2836
    Well, according to SOME people (here on this site as well, it's OK to let people suffer and die because they do not THEIR money going for treatment. Newsflash: The health of the citizens of the US are of the most utmost importance and of great concern to the entire country.

    Do you know what burns my as$?  These so-called 'Pro-Lifers' who vote for that orange dump in the oval office defecating on our flag because they like his "Policies". That makes me puke and when they die, I hope God drop-kicks them straight to Hell.
      February 17, 2020 7:43 PM MST
    3

  • 23641
    And I see tons of Pro-Lifers in my area marching (literally) for "Pro Life" and "anti-abortion" stuff but once those babies are born, to hell with them. Why aren't all these people out there adopting those babies once they're born? Once they're born, who cares? As long as they get "borned."
    I see it all the time.
    smh
      February 17, 2020 7:49 PM MST
    2

  • 34436
    Have you spoke to these people to know how they feel about assistance for the childcare after birth? Or is this an assumption you are making?

    I am pro-Life. I believe in having a safety net to help parents take care of their children if needed. I am a social conservative. It is strict fiscal conservatives who would oppose any kind of welfare. 
      February 17, 2020 8:38 PM MST
    3

  • 2836
    For chrissakes, yes. I am not saying all, but there are many. A perfect example exists on this site. The very person who fantasizes killing and torturing innocent people for no reason. I can also say the it's evident in the policies advocated by many conservatives who wish to cut services that assist in providing food, housing, and medical care. Many conservatives also promote and cheer the death penalty. I've heard all their arguments in favour, yet not one has yet to convince me how killing another is inline with their faith. What I rarely see or hears is a so-called pro-lifer challenge those who are as I described. They usually remain silent and follow the status quo.

    This post was edited by Jon at February 18, 2020 3:05 PM MST
      February 18, 2020 12:55 AM MST
    2

  • 34436
    My reply was not to you.

    There are generally 3 legs to the Rep party.  Social, foreign/military, and fiscal conservatives.  
    A person can be conservative on just one or 2 of these and cause them to be a Rep. 

    I personally most conservative on social issues. And not near as conservative as many on the other 2. (Not liberal by any means)   I know some who are the opposite. 
      February 18, 2020 4:20 AM MST
    0

  • 2836
    Oooo you are correct. I thought it was, but my comment still holds.
      February 18, 2020 10:25 AM MST
    1

  • 34436
    And my reply to you still holds.
      February 18, 2020 3:16 PM MST
    0

  • 4624

    I've just come to understand you much better from this comment.
    And you've shown me a different strand of American culture.
    Thank you. :)
      February 18, 2020 1:12 AM MST
    2

  • 34436
    Majority of states expanded Medicaid. There should be no one "dying in the streets" in these states.  If they are then you have a prime example of why we do not want the gov in charge of healthcare. 

    I am in favor of Medicaid for those who need it. I also support allowing some to buy into Medicaid. I believe there should be a work requirement for those of working age and able work. There should be income guidelines applied to the buy in.  Similiar to the CHIPs program for children. Also all programs should require citizenship. This post was edited by my2cents at February 18, 2020 3:06 PM MST
      February 18, 2020 4:38 AM MST
    1

  • 14795
    In England we have our NHS ....free medical assistance no matter what is wrong with you.....it's the most wonderful system in the world and one of the very few things I'm proud of being English for...
    Our hospitals and staff that ork there are the most amazing and dedicated people in our country...

    When America and any other military obsessed country can afford to spend countless trillions on arms and munitions,I find it amazing that they don't treat their citizens health issues more importantly.... 
      February 18, 2020 5:00 AM MST
    4

  • 6023

    Of course, part of the reason America spends so much on the military, is because the truism that "generals always plan for the last war" ... and the last 2 major wars, the world depended on America to pull their assets out of the fire.

    And that first truism, resulting in large military-industrial complex, follows with a second truism ... "if you have it, you must use it".
    I mean, if we have more aircraft carriers than every other nation combined, we have to justify having that many.  
    Which results in America "policing" or "intimidating" the rest of the world.  (depending on your viewpoint)

    Of course, America can afford to do both.  But that would require raising taxes, and neither side wants to do that because the majority of the American People don't want to.  One side wants a strong military, and thinks healthcare should be a personal issue.  The other side wants strong healthcare, and not so much military spending.

      February 18, 2020 10:57 AM MST
    3

  • 14795
    All very true I'm afraid...why it's better though to care about you military over living human lives is just utter madness really.....you can bet your life that it's mostly the poor of those out of work that age forced to enlist in the army to get food and a wage .
      February 18, 2020 2:58 PM MST
    1

  • 6023
    The irony of the situation, is the overlap between the two sides is still having troubles.
    The VA system of military healthcare is vastly underfunded ... when you would think it would be the best-funded portion of the healthcare system, since it should appeal to both sides.
      February 19, 2020 7:02 AM MST
    2

  • 14795
    When a few Sheckles are involved ......money will always come first...to get change quickly ,it has to effect the upper echelons of soscity a tiny bit for a second or to to have the correct effects on goverments... 
      February 19, 2020 4:41 PM MST
    0