Why people are afraid of universal health care

[Elixir]

“But I do not lack the means of feeding myself.“

Might that have to do with not being incarcerated?

 

[Elixir]

I has one prblem with a pharmcy. I called Medcare to complain and it was quicky resolved.

Heh! Medicare reps carry a VERY big stick, at least in the minds of insurance companies. One call always does it IME.

 

[bilby]

The fundamental problem is that voters will look at how the system fares for them. So long as it does a good job with the routine and does a good job with emergencies a very large number of voters will consider it to be working acceptably. The patients that get royally screwed of course say it's not working, but there aren't enough of them to make the politicians vote for increasing the spending.

Congratulations, you have identified the key differences between a democracy and an aristocracy.

Democracy sucks, if you are a wealthy aristocrat.

That doesn't mean that we should fear democracy.

 

[bilby]

I suspect that what's happening is bashers...

Not agreeing with your incorrect position does not make someone a "basher", it just makes you "wrong".

 

[Toni]

Needing to eat is neither an indulgence nor an offence, but a misfortune. So if the above quote attributed* to Bevan were valid reasoning then it would imply agriculture should be socialized food should be provided to hungry people

FTFY.

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

If you lack the means of feeding yourself, it should be.

But I do not lack the means of feeding myself. Do you have any other grounds to think the cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community?

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

ummm... soup kitchen? Food banks? DUH!

Soup kitchens and food banks have better uses for their limited resources than providing breakfast to a rich guy like me. DUH!

What appears to have escaped you two, though probably not bilby, is that this is not a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to poor people who can't afford it should be shared by the community. It's a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to people who can afford it should also be shared by the community anyway even though we're perfectly capable of paying the doctor or a private cost-pooler ourselves. It's a debate about the U.S. model vs. the British model. The U.S. has long socialized the cost of care for the impoverished; it's called "Medicaid". (The U.S. even abolished private medical insurance, back in 2010 -- although what we have instead is still labeled "insurance", it stopped being the real thing when the ACA outlawed exclusion of preexisting conditions.)

The point of Marshall's philosophical claim Bilby quoted upthread (and of similar claims Bevan actually made*) was never that poor people should get their care paid for by the rest of us, but rather that "no element of commercialism should enter between doctor and patient".

My point is that that's an idiotic way to decide public policy. Whether socialized care of the poor and/or socialized feeding of the poor is better done by socializing the whole system from top to bottom, or instead by providing subsidies and directed attention to the poor while leaving those capable of fending for ourselves to do so, is a complicated technical question with costs and benefits in both directions to be traded off. Any intelligent attempt to answer it for health care needs to focus on the problems specific to health care, not on philosophical nonsense that doesn't know the difference between a medical clinic and a kitchen.

(* For instance, "The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.")

So why shouldn’t the wealthy assist those less fortunate?

Bilby and I are ion a reasonable income, but we still help those less fortunate than us - particularly in my job as a teacher. I buy fruit for brain break, and so many pencils (fuck me can those kids eat them or what?), just so my kids can learn.

Only arrogant selfish people think that the poor shouldn’t receive assistance.

Hey, if I can afford to go to a better dr for surgery through private health insurance, sure.. my arugument is that that same surgeon should, and mostly would, offer their services to someone not insured. The only difference, IMO, is the use of private to ‘jump the queue’ for non essential life saving surgery.

Case in point, a lady at school and I are the same age. We both have horrible knees….. she waited a year for a knee replacement because she went public. It was deemed category three with means get to it within a year. I needed knee surgery and it was was done within a few weeks. I still didn’t pay much (as per above), which is how insurance is supposed to work.

The US system sucks! Plain and simple. Health care should be for everyone. Simple.

The US system sucks in its willingness to afford everyone good access to excellent care. Unfortunately, the will to do this varies by state and to some degree proximity to excellent health care centers. My state does a good job protecting biding free/low cost care to those who need it. Unfortunately, there are still employers who refuse to provide adequate affordable insurance to their employees. Also concerning is that local governmental bodies, including school systems cannot afford to provide the best insurance options for their employees and generally, neither can smaller employers. However, the state offers pretty good insurance plans at affordable rates to all state employees. It is my absolute firm belief that every single governmental body: turn, county, etc. should be included in that state insurance plan or have that option, as well as farmers and they’re employees and small businesses. It would be, in fact, a test run of UHC.

The drawbacks I observe are that a lot of providers limit the number of their Medicaid ( low income) patients and increasingly, Medicare patients because Medicare and Medicaid pay so poorly, often not covering the actual cost of treatment. THAT needs to change. NOW. Otherwise, we stand at very serious risk of losing our excellent health care.

 

[steve_bank]

National health care would require a compromise that is near impossible.

Bernie Sanders would say all health care should be free without qualification. No concerns about cost.

Conservatives would say socialized medicine would lead to the end of free market economics and personal freedom of choice.

Another related problem I heard from doctors is that the government effectively controls the number of doctors.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well I hope our future President Harris and our future Democrat controlled legislature can advance the ACA a little further.

As I get older I've been distancing myself from the VA and moving more towards Tricare. It costs a bit but not so much I can't afford it. The only thing they really hit you on is the copays. It can be as much as $150 per visit. So when Cleveland Clinic tries to send me on the rounds in consult purgatory, I know to ask questions and get solid answers. My first carpal tunnel surgery had me see four different individuals before I finally got to the surgery. They were all just $50 each but still. This time, my surgery being in two weeks, I only have the presurgery and then surgery: $119 total so says my portal access. The good doctor gave me his direct contact and told me not to go through my PCM. Though the doctor has an office in Bath, more near me, I have to go all the way to Akron because while it says Cleveland Clinic on the building and the doctors are Cleveland Clinic employees, the actual facility is owned by someone else and they do not accept my low payout government coverage. Probably owned by a group of rich fuckers who live in Bath. I can come up with a humorous turn of phrase or two it being in Bath and all but I'll spare you.

No matter what lame reasons others may come up with arguing against UHC comparing the US to other countries, we can afford to do this and do it well.

 

[zorq]

I just saw this thread and it pissed me off so much. Argument from annecdote? WTF?

Let me tell you my own anecdote. My mom was a wonderful person. She was a public school teacher in the US and therefore had pretty good insurance. During a routine test the doctor saw something concerning and ordered the logical followup test. Insurance denied coverage. She could have paid for the followup test out of pocket, but she didn't have the money after a divorce. So she didn't wait 6 months, she waited 3 years for that followup test because that was when Federal law required insurance companies to cover that test. 3 years later she gets the test and she has stage 4 cancer. She fights it but she is dead within a year.

Fucking shit it pisses me off.

Sad irony is that if the insurance company had covered her test they wouldn't have had to cover all her expensive cancer treatments. Plus I would still have my mother. (She was 50 when she died) This OP feels like a sick joke.

 

[steve_bank]

There has to be a cutoff point. Otherwise there is no bounds on costs.

Not knowing the specifics of Zorg's mother's case it is an anecdotal story.

 

[bilby]

There has to be a cutoff point. Otherwise there is no bounds on costs.

Not knowing the specifics of Zorg's mother's case it is an anecdotal story.

Enough specifics were provided to note that in that case, the costs to the insurer were greater because of their penny-pinching policy.

So, yes, there has to be a cutoff point; But US medical insurance providers are far worse than physicians at deciding where that cutoff point belongs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Heh. Before he hooked up with his PA, pulled up stakes and left town, my previous Doc referred me to a slew of specialists. I started cancelling screenings/tests immediately, but kept the consultation appointments. So far the only consult that did NOT make me feel free and unconcerned about declining stuff, was with the dermatologist, who helped me get rid of the pre-cancerous lesions that came from sun exposure. Other than that …I took a pass on most all the rest. I cancelled the “follow up consultation” with the cardiologist yesterday. He had some concern about swelling of the lower aorta, but all they can do is scan after scan after scan - no mention of interventions in case they don’t like what the scans show. From what I gather, it would come down to “ok you’re gonna die, go into hospice”.
I am not interested in spending the rest of my life trying to extend the rest of my life. But I am very interested in how much of our total medical resources are going to unnecessary, possibly harmful, and manifestly ineffective procedures, tests and treatments. I think UHC would cut down on that crap.

I have been on an Advantage plan for five years. It's criminal how much money they waste trying to get my wife and myself into these additional procedures. I just got another call today to remind me about their additional "free" service. If it was actually insurance and not a money making boondoggle it wouldn't be so expensive.

I chose to forego the Advantage (scam) offer. The number of private Vompaies advertising it is a dead giveaway. Instead I have enlisted an advisor who helped me shop the Medicare menu and order a la carte. Advantage would have “disadvantaged” me to the tune of another 3k/yr. The only tangible upfront “benefit” would have been the “Silver Sneaker” program that would have gotten me a free pass to the pool (my main regular exercise is lap swimming). But the pool pass only costs around $300 annually, so … no.

Around here you save money by going the MA route. When I hit that age I'm not going to, though--they make their money by limiting access.

It depends what you can take “advantage” of. I did a realistic assessment and there was no contest. Your situation - and the plan benefits - may vary.

The problem comes from the stuff you can't assess as well--access to providers and the like.

 

[Elixir]

The problem comes from the stuff you can't assess as well--access to providers and the like.

Zackly.
The challenge of bringing together the best hardware and software, with the best medical specialists in an array of fields, and delivering it all to people including those in rural areas … I dunno. Quite daunting. Air medical transport is a thriving institution around here, despite the fact that the local hospital is geared up real good. .

 

[bilby]

The problem comes from the stuff you can't assess as well--access to providers and the like.

Zackly.
The challenge of bringing together the best hardware and software, with the best medical specialists in an array of fields, and delivering it all to people including those in rural areas … I dunno. Quite daunting. Air medical transport is a thriving institution around here, despite the fact that the local hospital is geared up real good. .

Under UHC, no provider is out of plan, because there's only one plan, and everyone's in it.

 

[barbos]

In US everyone has to be an expert in dealing with small print insurance companies/banks/other scams and at the same time you are not allowed to replace light switch, becasue you are not smart enough.
I remember committing medical insurance "fraud" where I told doctor to record procedure under different name so that insurance company would actually pay for it. The irony is, it cost them more as result. Stupid system.

 

[bilby]

National health care would require a compromise that is near impossible.

That's what the Tories said in the 1930s and early '40s in the UK.

Then in 1948, they did it, and it turned out thst it was (and is) perfectly possible.

Not necessarily easy, but then, what is?

 

[barbos]

National health care would require a compromise that is near impossible.

Private medical insurance companies will compromise your health even better than UHC.

 

[Bomb#20]

Needing to eat is neither an indulgence nor an offence, but a misfortune. So if the above quote attributed* to Bevan were valid reasoning then it would imply agriculture should be socialized food should be provided to hungry people

FTFY.

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

If you lack the means of feeding yourself, it should be.

But I do not lack the means of feeding myself. Do you have any other grounds to think the cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community?

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

ummm... soup kitchen? Food banks? DUH!

Soup kitchens and food banks have better uses for their limited resources than providing breakfast to a rich guy like me. DUH!

What appears to have escaped you two, though probably not bilby, is that this is not a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to poor people who can't afford it should be shared by the community. It's a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to people who can afford it should also be shared by the community anyway even though we're perfectly capable of paying the doctor or a private cost-pooler ourselves. It's a debate about the U.S. model vs. the British model. The U.S. has long socialized the cost of care for the impoverished; it's called "Medicaid". (The U.S. even abolished private medical insurance, back in 2010 -- although what we have instead is still labeled "insurance", it stopped being the real thing when the ACA outlawed exclusion of preexisting conditions.)

The point of Marshall's philosophical claim Bilby quoted upthread (and of similar claims Bevan actually made*) was never that poor people should get their care paid for by the rest of us, but rather that "no element of commercialism should enter between doctor and patient".

My point is that that's an idiotic way to decide public policy. Whether socialized care of the poor and/or socialized feeding of the poor is better done by socializing the whole system from top to bottom, or instead by providing subsidies and directed attention to the poor while leaving those capable of fending for ourselves to do so, is a complicated technical question with costs and benefits in both directions to be traded off. Any intelligent attempt to answer it for health care needs to focus on the problems specific to health care, not on philosophical nonsense that doesn't know the difference between a medical clinic and a kitchen.

(* For instance, "The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.")

So why shouldn’t the wealthy assist those less fortunate?

Bilby and I are ion a reasonable income, but we still help those less fortunate than us - particularly in my job as a teacher. I buy fruit for brain break, and so many pencils ... just so my kids can learn.

Only arrogant selfish people think that the poor shouldn’t receive assistance.

Hey, if I can afford to go to a better dr for surgery through private health insurance, sure.. my arugument is that that same surgeon should, and mostly would, offer their services to someone not insured. The only difference, IMO, is the use of private to ‘jump the queue’ for non essential life saving surgery.

Case in point, a lady at school and I are the same age. We both have horrible knees….. she waited a year for a knee replacement because she went public. It was deemed category three with means get to it within a year. I needed knee surgery and it was was done within a few weeks. I still didn’t pay much (as per above), which is how insurance is supposed to work.

The US system sucks! Plain and simple. Health care should be for everyone. Simple.

Holy mother of god! Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the wealthy shouldn't assist those less fortunate? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the poor shouldn’t receive assistance? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the US system doesn't suck? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say health care shouldn't be for everyone? It's like you didn't even bother to read my post before you hit "Reply" and quoted it back to me and then appended a "reply" that had jack squat to do with anything you'd quoted.

Some time between when I was a kid and now, a lot of U.S. schools gave up phonics and switched to a newly fashionable theory called "whole language", wherein they tried to teach kids to read by telling them to just guess words they didn't recognize straight off and carry on reading, instead of sounding them out and then looking them up or asking the teacher if they still didn't know the word. This practice has the entirely predictable result that the kids don't learn new words by reading them and so never acquire reading vocabularies any larger than their oral vocabularies. One of my nieces was taught this way; listening to her try to read aloud was painful. That's a metaphor for your post -- it reads like you didn't already recognize the line of argument you were seeing, and rather than follow the words and try to understand, or ask me to explain further, you just guessed which argument it was from among those you were already familiar with, and replied to what you imagined I meant instead of replying to what you saw me say. Please do not impute views to me that I haven't expressed.

 

[Henry-Finland]

Steve_Bank wrote:
If public libraries had never existed, and someone proposed creating today one for the public good, more than half of the politicians would shout: "Communism! This is the path to a totalitarian state! Think of the poor authors! And the tax burden for the people!"

Fortunately, Benjamin Franklin founded the first public library in 1731.

 

[gmbteach]

Needing to eat is neither an indulgence nor an offence, but a misfortune. So if the above quote attributed* to Bevan were valid reasoning then it would imply agriculture should be socialized food should be provided to hungry people

FTFY.

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

If you lack the means of feeding yourself, it should be.

But I do not lack the means of feeding myself. Do you have any other grounds to think the cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community?

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

ummm... soup kitchen? Food banks? DUH!

Soup kitchens and food banks have better uses for their limited resources than providing breakfast to a rich guy like me. DUH!

What appears to have escaped you two, though probably not bilby, is that this is not a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to poor people who can't afford it should be shared by the community. It's a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to people who can afford it should also be shared by the community anyway even though we're perfectly capable of paying the doctor or a private cost-pooler ourselves. It's a debate about the U.S. model vs. the British model. The U.S. has long socialized the cost of care for the impoverished; it's called "Medicaid". (The U.S. even abolished private medical insurance, back in 2010 -- although what we have instead is still labeled "insurance", it stopped being the real thing when the ACA outlawed exclusion of preexisting conditions.)

The point of Marshall's philosophical claim Bilby quoted upthread (and of similar claims Bevan actually made*) was never that poor people should get their care paid for by the rest of us, but rather that "no element of commercialism should enter between doctor and patient".

My point is that that's an idiotic way to decide public policy. Whether socialized care of the poor and/or socialized feeding of the poor is better done by socializing the whole system from top to bottom, or instead by providing subsidies and directed attention to the poor while leaving those capable of fending for ourselves to do so, is a complicated technical question with costs and benefits in both directions to be traded off. Any intelligent attempt to answer it for health care needs to focus on the problems specific to health care, not on philosophical nonsense that doesn't know the difference between a medical clinic and a kitchen.

(* For instance, "The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.")

So why shouldn’t the wealthy assist those less fortunate?

Bilby and I are ion a reasonable income, but we still help those less fortunate than us - particularly in my job as a teacher. I buy fruit for brain break, and so many pencils ... just so my kids can learn.

Only arrogant selfish people think that the poor shouldn’t receive assistance.

Hey, if I can afford to go to a better dr for surgery through private health insurance, sure.. my arugument is that that same surgeon should, and mostly would, offer their services to someone not insured. The only difference, IMO, is the use of private to ‘jump the queue’ for non essential life saving surgery.

Case in point, a lady at school and I are the same age. We both have horrible knees….. she waited a year for a knee replacement because she went public. It was deemed category three with means get to it within a year. I needed knee surgery and it was was done within a few weeks. I still didn’t pay much (as per above), which is how insurance is supposed to work.

The US system sucks! Plain and simple. Health care should be for everyone. Simple.

Holy mother of god! Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the wealthy shouldn't assist those less fortunate? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the poor shouldn’t receive assistance? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the US system doesn't suck? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say health care shouldn't be for everyone? It's like you didn't even bother to read my post before you hit "Reply" and quoted it back to me and then appended a "reply" that had jack squat to do with anything you'd quoted.

Some time between when I was a kid and now, a lot of U.S. schools gave up phonics and switched to a newly fashionable theory called "whole language", wherein they tried to teach kids to read by telling them to just guess words they didn't recognize straight off and carry on reading, instead of sounding them out and then looking them up or asking the teacher if they still didn't know the word. This practice has the entirely predictable result that the kids don't learn new words by reading them and so never acquire reading vocabularies any larger than their oral vocabularies. One of my nieces was taught this way; listening to her try to read aloud was painful. That's a metaphor for your post -- it reads like you didn't already recognize the line of argument you were seeing, and rather than follow the words and try to understand, or ask me to explain further, you just guessed which argument it was from among those you were already familiar with, and replied to what you imagined I meant instead of replying to what you saw me say. Please do not impute views to me that I haven't expressed.

Teacher here, so let’s a leave the teaching reference alone.

Your quote:
I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

My response was about soup kitchens - aka the community providing food for less fortunate.

Your quote (Bilby’s editing included because you are getting me at the end of a very hard very long week so I am leaving it there - and yes I get the irony of the fact that me typing the explanation is propbsblyblonger than editing the quote but hey.. Sue me)
Needing to eat is neither an indulgence nor an offence, but a misfortune. So if the above quote attributed* to Bevan were valid reasoning then it would imply agriculture should be socialize
So I refer to the soup kitchen again. Why shouldn’t those less fortunate be assisted by those than can?

You APPEAR (don’t really want to be sued) to not care that there are those less fortunate than you who need food and medical assistance…. Would you walk past a nun having a heart attack?

IMO medical assistance is akin to food and shelter - necessities of life.

I like this quote,, and I think it sums up why UHC is needed….

Mead said that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink or hunt for food.

 

[Bomb#20]

Needing to eat is neither an indulgence nor an offence, but a misfortune. So if the above quote attributed* to Bevan were valid reasoning then it would imply agriculture should be socialized food should be provided to hungry people

FTFY.

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

If you lack the means of feeding yourself, it should be.

But I do not lack the means of feeding myself. Do you have any other grounds to think the cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community?

I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

ummm... soup kitchen? Food banks? DUH!

Soup kitchens and food banks have better uses for their limited resources than providing breakfast to a rich guy like me. DUH!

What appears to have escaped you two, though probably not bilby, is that this is not a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to poor people who can't afford it should be shared by the community. It's a debate about whether the cost of providing health care to people who can afford it should also be shared by the community anyway even though we're perfectly capable of paying the doctor or a private cost-pooler ourselves. It's a debate about the U.S. model vs. the British model. The U.S. has long socialized the cost of care for the impoverished; it's called "Medicaid". (The U.S. even abolished private medical insurance, back in 2010 -- although what we have instead is still labeled "insurance", it stopped being the real thing when the ACA outlawed exclusion of preexisting conditions.)

The point of Marshall's philosophical claim Bilby quoted upthread (and of similar claims Bevan actually made*) was never that poor people should get their care paid for by the rest of us, but rather that "no element of commercialism should enter between doctor and patient".

My point is that that's an idiotic way to decide public policy. Whether socialized care of the poor and/or socialized feeding of the poor is better done by socializing the whole system from top to bottom, or instead by providing subsidies and directed attention to the poor while leaving those capable of fending for ourselves to do so, is a complicated technical question with costs and benefits in both directions to be traded off. Any intelligent attempt to answer it for health care needs to focus on the problems specific to health care, not on philosophical nonsense that doesn't know the difference between a medical clinic and a kitchen.

(* For instance, "The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability, and wealth is not advantaged.")

So why shouldn’t the wealthy assist those less fortunate?

Bilby and I are ion a reasonable income, but we still help those less fortunate than us - particularly in my job as a teacher. I buy fruit for brain break, and so many pencils ... just so my kids can learn.

Only arrogant selfish people think that the poor shouldn’t receive assistance.

Hey, if I can afford to go to a better dr for surgery through private health insurance, sure.. my arugument is that that same surgeon should, and mostly would, offer their services to someone not insured. The only difference, IMO, is the use of private to ‘jump the queue’ for non essential life saving surgery.

Case in point, a lady at school and I are the same age. We both have horrible knees….. she waited a year for a knee replacement because she went public. It was deemed category three with means get to it within a year. I needed knee surgery and it was was done within a few weeks. I still didn’t pay much (as per above), which is how insurance is supposed to work.

The US system sucks! Plain and simple. Health care should be for everyone. Simple.

Holy mother of god! Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the wealthy shouldn't assist those less fortunate? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the poor shouldn’t receive assistance? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say the US system doesn't suck? Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say health care shouldn't be for everyone? It's like you didn't even bother to read my post before you hit "Reply" and quoted it back to me and then appended a "reply" that had jack squat to do with anything you'd quoted.

Some time between when I was a kid and now, a lot of U.S. schools gave up phonics and switched to a newly fashionable theory called "whole language", wherein they tried to teach kids to read by telling them to just guess words they didn't recognize straight off and carry on reading, instead of sounding them out and then looking them up or asking the teacher if they still didn't know the word. This practice has the entirely predictable result that the kids don't learn new words by reading them and so never acquire reading vocabularies any larger than their oral vocabularies. One of my nieces was taught this way; listening to her try to read aloud was painful. That's a metaphor for your post -- it reads like you didn't already recognize the line of argument you were seeing, and rather than follow the words and try to understand, or ask me to explain further, you just guessed which argument it was from among those you were already familiar with, and replied to what you imagined I meant instead of replying to what you saw me say. Please do not impute views to me that I haven't expressed.

Teacher here, so let’s a leave the teaching reference alone.

I found it a bit shocking that a teacher would display such poor reading comprehension.

Your quote:
I was hungry this morning. The cost of providing me breakfast should have been shared by the community.

I think you picked up on the sarcasm, but just in case, I was pointing out to bilby that my hunger is a stupid reason to think society should pay for my breakfast.

My response was about soup kitchens - aka the community providing food for less fortunate.

That was your first error -- soup kitchens were not on point. You appear to have seen me indicate that I don't think society should buy me breakfast and illogically jumped to the conclusion that I don't think society should buy anyone breakfast. That's the Hasty Generalization Fallacy. Why did you do that?

Your quote (Bilby’s editing included because you are getting me at the end of a very hard very long week so I am leaving it there - and yes I get the irony of the fact that me typing the explanation is propbsblyblonger than editing the quote but hey.. Sue me)
Needing to eat is neither an indulgence nor an offence, but a misfortune. So if the above quote attributed* to Bevan were valid reasoning then it would imply agriculture should be socialize
So I refer to the soup kitchen again. Why shouldn’t those less fortunate be assisted by those than can?

Good grief! Why shouldn't your wife not be beaten?!? Your question assumes facts not in evidence!

I pointed out your mistake. You doubled down on it. So I pointed it out again. And here you are, tripling down on it. Stop asking "Why shouldn’t those less fortunate be assisted by those than can?" until you find somebody who implies those less fortunate shouldn't be assisted by those that can! This is not rocket science.

Do you seriously believe socializing agriculture is the only way a society can have soup kitchens? No? Then how the bejesus do you convince yourself my opposition to socializing agriculture is a good reason for you to conclude I'm against soup kitchens? What the hell? The Soviets socialized agriculture and caused a famine. The PRC socialized agriculture and caused a famine. North Korea socialized agriculture and caused a famine. The Khmer Rouge socialized agriculture and caused a famine. The US did not socialize agriculture, did not cause a famine, and set up soup kitchens!.

You APPEAR (don’t really want to be sued) to not care that there are those less fortunate than you who need food and medical assistance….

Show your goddamn work! No, I bloody well do not APPEAR to not care that there are those less fortunate than you who need food and medical assistance. That is a whole-cloth figment of your imagination. I did not give any such appearance out; your opinion is something your brain did to itself.

The quote in the meme bilby posted expressed the sentiment that something being neither an indulgence nor an offence, but a misfortune, was a good reason for society to pay for filling everyone's need of that thing, not just a good reason for society to pay for filling poor people's need of that thing. So I offered myself as a counterexample, a person whom there is no good reason for society to subsidize, because I'm not poor.

Would you walk past a nun having a heart attack?

Stop making groundless insinuations.

IMO medical assistance is akin to food and shelter - necessities of life.

I like this quote,, and I think it sums up why UHC is needed….

Mead said that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink or hunt for food.

Well, in the first place, Mead was evidently not an evolutionary biologist. The ability of bones to heal themselves from breaks is not something that animals spent five hundred million years evolving without consequently surviving, just in order to preadapt their human descendants for the day when we'd invent civilization and finally get some payoff from all their investment.

Second, and more to the point, why the bejesus would you assume UHC being needed is a good reason to think somebody's argument for the NHS must have been valid? It's perfectly possible to make health care universal with a mixed public/private system. Here you are, over and over, seeing me point out that a pro-NHS argument is illogical, and apparently fervently believing you saw me denounce Medicaid.

Every time you lecture me about helping the poor, you are falsely and groundlessly insinuating that I need a lecture on helping the poor. Every time you do that I will have good reason to lecture you about improving your reading comprehension.