Britfag. Sorry if repost. rm. PAY min HE i" WEE MEN CARE to HINGE THAT CASE. , you took a picture of your screen nhs
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (156)
[ 156 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #10 - guylongname
Reply +89 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
******, you took a picture of your screen
#31 to #10 - anon id: afc4802b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
its still a good quality picture so it doesnt matter
User avatar #117 to #10 - uzerc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
That's actually a pretty good picture of a screen. Perfect lighting and whatnot.
#11 to #10 - imafuckingunicorn [OP]
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
***** I stole this image from the ***** that took a picture of his screen
User avatar #1 - sciencexplain
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
Hmmm.... No. I live in the UK. I waited 6 months to see a consultant for a dislocation. The waiting times are appalling and doctors and GPs focus more on keeping the number of prescriptions and referalls to the lowest possible to ensure they stay in the black. Democracy is ****** in the UK, and whilst free healthcare sounds great, it's made the doctors and hospitals focus more on maintaining money and staying in the black than actually helping to cure and prevent people's health problems.
User avatar #6 to #1 - worldatarms
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
Yeah, The GP's may be free but they are appalling. My Brother had an appointment to have half his ingrowing toenail removed, but then when we came to finally unwrap the bandages 2 weeks later. Turns out the GP just gave up and left the broken nail in the toe.
User avatar #7 to #6 - sciencexplain
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
Your GP did that? GP's shouldn't do that job... That's the job of a podiatrist. I had that done, turned out great. Nearly fainted during it but they did a good job. My GP now is actually really good and has helped me out with a lot of problems and fixed my long-term breathing issue, so it's luck as to who you get.
User avatar #12 to #7 - BerryLicious
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Point me in the direction of your GP. Mine's terrible.
User avatar #60 to #12 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
That's a shame. It's a gamble. You gotta hope you get a good one, and if not, switch around if you're allowed.
User avatar #8 to #7 - worldatarms
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
Well, he was the same person who diagnosed and tried to fix the problem.
I'm not good with names but I definitely know he was government funded.
User avatar #9 to #8 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
Did you go to the doctor about your problem first?
#2 to #1 - anon id: 3d6e6553
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
Except you get a choice. Go private for better service, or stay public and wait for a while.

If you have a choice between them , don't complain.
User avatar #3 to #2 - sciencexplain
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
I don't have a choice, because private healthcare is too expensive.
User avatar #38 to #3 - turtletroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
So all healthcare going private is better?

Waiting times aren't that bad where I live.

Got to see a doctor the same week for a broken hand
User avatar #62 to #38 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Consider yourself lucky. I wait so long for consultations on injuries that I know about, then wait 2 months (not THAT bad) for an MRI scan. I put it down to the size of our local hospital, because their MRI ward is small and they only have 2 machines.
User avatar #63 to #62 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It wasn't this bad a while ago.

I guess it's to do with the conservative government.
User avatar #64 to #63 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Well, over in MK where I live, they planned to sell off ALL of the hospital here and the closest hospital would be in Northampton, so the "golden hour" would be worthless and anyone suffering from a heart attack or stroke would be guaranteed to die. It's ******* disgraceful because they refuse to manage their finances properly and it makes me sick to see how people suffer from it and they don't ******* care.
User avatar #65 to #64 - turtletroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
The conservatives ******* hate the NHS.

Cut the budget. Pay the staff less and make them work much longer in a already incredibly stressful job.

Then they go talk about the failures of the NHS. It wasn't bad at all under labor even if they ****** everything else up thanks to Gordon Brown
User avatar #66 to #65 - sciencexplain
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Well, I stopped caring after I realised that we can't really change anything. The votes are always swayed by bias and people looking after their own interests, which is fair, but then the result is that they get away with things and don't even act as they promised. It's disgraceful. I'd rather live in another country, but not America unless I had a really good job.
User avatar #67 to #66 - turtletroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It's the same everywhere.

I studied politics for a while and the teacher summed it up as the word politics derives from the greek word poly (meaning many) and blood sucking bugs

People just want to advance their own interests everywhere on earth
User avatar #68 to #67 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I wanted to become a musician, so I could travel the world and never live under anybodies permanent rules and see the world in its beauty. Instead, I'm doing ****** studentships and can't find any opportunities to pursue my real dream. I just want to be anywhere besides here or America. Somewhere that's good.
User avatar #69 to #68 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I wanted to be a musician for a while but couldn't afford a guitar or any kind of lessons for any instrument when I was younger and now I have no musical talents even though i'm so into music

I'm training to be a engineer which isn't so bad and it's in demand worldwide so I can travel when i'm finished training
User avatar #71 to #69 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
That sounds better than where I'm stuck at the moment. Hopefully, life can go the way we both want it to.
User avatar #72 to #71 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
You should've gone into science
User avatar #76 to #72 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I tried, but forensics is hard to go into, mate. Really hard. I regret it. Probably should have done ChemEng, cause that pays fabulously.
User avatar #79 to #76 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I have really ****** GCSE grades and only got into engineering because the teachers were sick of me being a persistent ******
User avatar #80 to #79 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Good. In life, be a dickhead until it gets you where you want to be. You had the right to do it and you ******* made sure you got there. That's the kind of attitude that gets you places and gets you money.
User avatar #81 to #80 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Yeah I did some stupid **** and got kicked out of a level 1 mechanics course but then I did I think 15+ night courses for the rest of the term
User avatar #83 to #81 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
What stupid **** did you do?
User avatar #86 to #83 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It was a last minute thing. After the Politics A level I decided to not carry that on pretty late and the only course they had left was hairdressing, fashion and design and mechanics
User avatar #88 to #86 - sciencexplain
0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
That's a shame. Courses are always really confusing to pick at A-Level. Thinking about it, I'd rather I did physics since I had physics and chemistry and maths a-level but I can't afford to go back. At the moment, I'm looking at fixing up things in my life first. Then, who knows.
User avatar #84 to #83 - turtletroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Didn't show up for 8 weeks and just acted like a right dumb cunt when I finally did show up

I really didn't want to do mechanics but I still should've just stayed with it
User avatar #85 to #84 - sciencexplain
0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Cmon man, that's not cool. Why did you even pick mechanics then, if you didn't like it?
#52 to #3 - anon id: 3d6e6553
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Are you retarded? You're saying you would rather not get treated at all than wait for a little while?

Also, you can't be against BOTH sides of the argument at once, that is retarded.
User avatar #61 to #52 - sciencexplain
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I never said that. I said private is too costly for me, and whilst I don't like the waiting times of the public, I'm still using it. I ******* pay my money into it, so I ******* will use it.
#4 to #1 - imafuckingunicorn [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
Mr White didn't have a dislocation.
User avatar #5 to #4 - sciencexplain
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/10/2014) [-]
You still need to be referred from your doctor to a specialist, and the waiting times for referrals and waiting times to have scans are ******* ridiculous. He would have died before he got referred to chemotherapy and screenings.
User avatar #73 to #1 - mattythebeaver
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
The NHS is good where I live.
I get prescriptions for quite trivial issues and when I broke a bone it was only a few days between seeing my GP and going to hospital to get it x-rayed and treated on the same day.
User avatar #75 to #73 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It's all dependent on the size of the NHS property where you live and the population where you live. I live in a ******** and the staffing and equipment numbers are low, so I have to wait ages.
User avatar #77 to #75 - Faz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Then if you are aware to why the wait times are so horrendous in your area why did you speak like the entire of the UK has **** wait times?
User avatar #78 to #77 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Because the majority of them are poorly handled, because the NHS tell each facility to focus on saving money by reducing prescriptions, referrals and machine uses so that they can save money. Your facility might be able to accommodate more people, but if they don't have to, they won't so they can save money.
#93 to #1 - sarahm
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I'd still rather the free healthcare. I live in Ireland but all my relatives live in England and they all think it's crazy that I have to pay 50 euro just for an appointment, and then the cost of my prescription of on top of that.  mfw they complain when they have to pay £6 for a prescription
I'd still rather the free healthcare. I live in Ireland but all my relatives live in England and they all think it's crazy that I have to pay 50 euro just for an appointment, and then the cost of my prescription of on top of that. mfw they complain when they have to pay £6 for a prescription
User avatar #96 to #1 - SirFail
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
What? i've never had a problem with GPs or hospitals. I always get called up in under 10 mins of waiting to see a GP and i've been to the hospital it felt like a hotel stay more than a surgical procedure although that may have been the drugs talking. When i asked my doctor to take a look at my nose ( i was 16 and couldn't breathe through it properly), he said it had been broken and reset after i fell off a wall broke it and didnt know it was broken (i was 7 and it didnt hurt that much just bled alot). So the doctor got me into an x-ray within a week and an operation the week after. The worst part was the nose tapons to collect the blood from the cuts. Dat **** is not nice, feels like a slug being pulled out through your nose.
#97 to #1 - anon id: 80e00115
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
too bad there's things worse than a dislocation, you ******* twat
User avatar #101 to #97 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It's called a ******* example. That's like saying "unless you've had cancer, you aren't allowed an opinion".
User avatar #118 to #1 - fishandkids
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
When I needed surgery I got in right away, when I had a blood cloth in my brain and meningitis I went straight to the hospital and they treated me for nearly 4 months, I had to get weekly blood tests for 6 months, take pills everyday for 6 months and had to have an MRI scan every 6 months for 2 years and I didn't have to pay for ****. How much would that have cost in the US?
User avatar #121 to #118 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It would have cost a horrifying amount, that's for sure. Of course, your injuries were ridiculously serious, life-threatening even, so there is no excuse in that case for wait times. Broken your arm? Naah, we can wait a while. It's horrifying, but at least the medical problems that are life-threatening and expensive are actually done. You don't realise that it's difficult for them to cover those costs, so they cut back in expenditures with GPs and doctors by reducing prescriptions and referrals because that costs them money too.
User avatar #43 to #1 - jewsburninindaoven
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Seeing how your healthcare system is ranked 18th and is 26th in expenditure per capita while the US is 38th with the number 1 expenditure per capita, you should stop complaining
User avatar #44 to #1 - cousin
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
The NHS has saved my life twice so far. Saved my children when they were born (twins which were born too soon) and my mother once.
So even if the waiting times are huge, it is better than America.
User avatar #46 to #44 - Yardie
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
So because the country you live in has doctors that saved the lives of the immediate people around you, the healthcare system is better.

And you don't think that's at least little self-centered and arrogant?

What about all the hospitals in the US that save people multiple times? What about all the people that are stuck for almost 2 months on a waiting list? I mean I doubt you even have any personal experience in a US hospital, so how could you possibly say that the system you are used to is better while citing personal experience?
User avatar #48 to #46 - cousin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
My family would be in an enormous amount of debt if it wasn't for the NHS. I don't know how the American system works, but the NHS doesn't cost me anything, really. About £12 per month which, is nothing. You aren't even "really" paying it as it is a tax.
#49 to #48 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
You're having it forcefully taken from you. Even if you practice caution and make healthy choices you still have the money taken from you or borrowed from you. You're still paying for it, and you're still going into debt, although the debt is Nationalized and being pushed onto your children and your children's children and so on.

The American system, financially, is even worse. There are mountains of regulations and even more mountains of subsidies that make everything extremely complicated and expensive while giving very perverted incentives, especially with pharmaceuticals. However, the quality of the healthcare is generally excellent, and it is only the very rare cases where somebody actually goes into crippling debt or bankruptcy because of health issues. Most of the time it's because they didn't have insurance, which isn't really a thing anymore due to the ACA, although that caused many more problems than it solved.
User avatar #116 to #49 - archangel
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
So I'd rather pay it so everyone can get healthcare and not go without. Opting out of national healthcare system because why should you pay for someone else's is just immoral . I mean with a NHS by paying tax you are if not saving lives outright,you are providing security and quality of life for everybody. Not because they are family or an employee do you want this service provided for them it's because they are human. Granted are NHS is not the best is because the money is not governed right as doctors demand bigger salaries and shorter hours so there are more work and less money for nurse salaries and pharmaceutical. But Danish pays more more tax towards it and gets a better service. Granted if you're wealthy enough you can pay for private care then you get the same perks as the American service,but you pay the tax so others can use it and be cared for because you're doing your duty as a decent human being. I mean for say America with the biggest defence budget in the world if you even if you diverted like 2% of your defence budget you could set up a NHS so it would not really be costing the American people anything. Less guns more bandages.
User avatar #138 to #116 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
So it's immoral to not pay for somebody else's healthcare? So if you are starving and on your last $20 but the head of a fortune 500 company has a head cold, you are morally responsible to pay for his/her cold medicine and they don't have to lift a finger until somebody else is sick?

I don't think that's true. Mind elaborating on how you came to that conclusion? I would say theft is immoral and taxation by definition is theft.

And you believe that only a Government can form a functional healthcare system by forcing people to pay for it, even though I gave an example of a functional healthcare system that was completely voluntary that actually existed in history in above image? Or do you simply believe that using force to create a healthcare system is better?

Also, Government Spending is more complicated than that. The money circulates through the Government not because it's needed for the military, but because it's profitable for politicians. That's how Government and politicians work, even if that amount of corruption is minute, it's still present, and there's plenty of it in the US and the UK alike. Power is more addictive than amphetamines in the human brain, and when you get hooked on power you become corrupt in order to stay in power.
User avatar #139 to #138 - archangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Yes he has every right to use the system,as he would have contributed more to system due to being in a higher tax bracket, he also would get the same level of care as if the poor guy in your example would receive.Thats the beauty of the system. Plus the Fortune 500 guy would probably not use the NHS and opt for private care(better food ,more one to one with doctor) but he would still pay his higher contribution in tax so that your poor guy can be cared for if he fell ill. Providing he is not breaking the law. Your poor guy , if he is down to his last £20 , chances are that he has already paid his tax and can use the £20 to buy food. If £20 is all he had before tax he'd be on welfare and would not be eligible to play tax and he can buy food and he would have access to health care. If worst case scenario there are food banks to feed those who need it. You are not paying for the healthcare of one other person you are investing in the future health of everyone including yourself. Every American does not use every penny of their health care plan.
I don't like Tax either. But any decent person could see the value in contributing to free healthcare for everyone and their descendants .Even if that's the only sacrifice be made in your tax free utopia. Medicine should be free.

And money always gets allocated to other places if needed at least in British government where needed. I get taxation with out representation but if a bill ,motion referendum passed or a government allocate less to the defence budget . A budget for a army too big for today's warfare. There would be enough with 2% to start a health care system. Corruption happens ours is corrupt ,but I could lose my job get run over still receive healthcare with security from bankruptcy. Other countries do regulate health care system better but my point is UK can still provide care to everyone any country could do it.
User avatar #147 to #139 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/12/2014) [-]
I'm talking about ethical principals not the current system. You said it's immoral to not pay for somebody's healthcare. I'm asking, in a society, is a homeless man morally responsible for the wellness of a CEO? If the CEO gets sick is the poor man expected to give up the last of his money for the wellness of the CEO? Can you morally condemn the homeless man for not providing care for the CEO?

You're acting like healthcare is a gift from God. Healthcare is provided as a service by real people, and saying that medicine should be free is completely disrespectful of the time and effort it takes to research, manufacture, store, and distribute said medicine. To put a cost on healthcare is to indict reality, not morality.

Also, saying that the UK provides the care is just not right. People provide the care. The politicians simply write out pieces of paper that say "Take earnings from Peter and give it to Paul so that Paul can be convinced to give Joseph a kidney."
User avatar #149 to #147 - archangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/12/2014) [-]
Oh so now he s homeless . So now he would definitely be on welfare so he would not pay tax as he would be uneligible for tax so the CEO would not effect him . However is say you had a poor person that has a job which is over 15000 which would make him eligible to pay council tax then yes it's his duty to pay it as is it contributes to the NHS , Police and other services . It's ethical to pay it so that the everyone could get healthcare the fact that your example is a CEO is irrelevant as he would have provided to the system too and he is not the only one benefitting from your contribution. Healthcare should be a basic right to everyone , however it is a service that people have to be paid for so that salaries can be paid including those researching pharmaceuticals. The fact is we live is money driven society, we cannot live without it however you be hard pressed to live without needing some sort of healthcare through your life. National health service means that you can pay for the salaries and medicines for when you need them , and if you don't they can be used for those who do need them regardless of who they are and what job they may or may not do.
With out it you have " a have and have not system" where your poor and most vulnerable can not get access to medicine or at least not of the same quality. People forgo needed treatment because they can't afford it. These people who have jobs would make up the majority of the work force you would weaken them because they can't afford a healthcare plan so you deny them treatment. Medicine should be 'gift from god' that simple but we have to pay for it that's where NHS come in, it is unfair that it is expensive so we all chip in for the future , it is unfair that the cost would effect the rich less than the poor so you Have a tax bracket system so you take it with tax. Ethically you should want to help your fellow man when they are sick. You should want to contribute to a system where the strong protect the weak .
User avatar #150 to #149 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/12/2014) [-]
I'm trying to give an example of a moral question that puts your moral theory that not paying for healthcare is morally wrong. You keep dodging the question by inserting an organization so either you are ignoring what I'm saying or completely misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make.

Healthcare cannot be a human right unless you concede that slavery is moral. If you have two men on an island one man cannot force the other to provide healthcare to him. They can come to a mutual agreement that if one gets sick the other will take care of them, or one can say they will fish an extra hour in exchange for healthcare from the other, but one cannot force the other to provide healthcare for them and call it moral. However if you concede that slavery is moral then one is allowed to hold a gun to the other's head and make them do whatever he/she wants. I don't believe anybody sane would consider this right.

Also there are plenty of doctors willing to take patients for free out of pity. Have you ever heard of the Hippocratic Oath? However there is almost none of that anymore due to the fact that doctors can be sued or arrested for malpractice for doing so, so they charge for the risk they're taking.
User avatar #152 to #150 - archangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/13/2014) [-]
on top of insurance you still pay taxes and insurances plans .
you poor person needs treatment and your doctor needs to paid. as a nation are you going to let the poor person suffer, I hope not, but wait you pay taxes and insurance plan firstly the tax for the health care would be about $16 a month compared to what your insurance is worth the average contribution of $250 a month(circa 2009) so you could pay less and indirectly save a life and hell if got in a government that cut spending anything the health care tax could absorbed.
so slavery is not moral but now all you are try ing to do is acquaint a immoral concept with a moral concept to make both concept seem immoral which is a weak argument
its moral concept because it can benefit every one , because it allows the strong to protect the weak , because it allows the same treatment to all , because it allows the poor effectively the same longevity as the rich, because even though you may know that person you are helping them to live.
So my point is this If you have to pay tax then health care is something that should be paid for, so the poor do not have to go without health care. Effectively you'd contributing to everyone having a better safer tomorrow
User avatar #151 to #150 - archangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/13/2014) [-]
ok take the system out of it . Ok. America is a fairly a christian country, the story of the good samaritan not paying for health care is the equivalent of the people passing the wounded man by in the good samaritan.
tax in of it self could be considered immoral forcing people to pay funds. but you can not have a country with out tax . who would pay for the defence of that country, the education of the country, who would govern the country without tax. So if you have to have tax the one of the most ethical and morally right thing to pay for is health care. because it is immoral to turn a person away from treatment just because they are poor. I even say the health of your populace is more important than defence ,since there are countries that work militia forces .
We are not talking a bout two men though making an agreement. I wish it could be that simple . A whole population can't agree on a single thing that is why we have governments and even they are normally at odds. You can't get so many people to agree to take care of another person because each has a different relationship with that person, plus most people might not have the expertise to treat that person so you need doctors. That doctor needs to get paid but if that person has no money is he meant to be left in their condition, is the doctor meant to turn them away, that would be immoral. look at the man with the 10 stone testicle. So you all have to have insurance but thats expensive not everyone can afford it are they meant to be turned away . even those who can pay for insurance plans a different treatments are not equal a poor family would not have access to the same treatment that your fortune 500 guy had is that fair.
User avatar #153 to #151 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/13/2014) [-]
Religion is not ethics. Ethics are concrete and objective, religion is about belief and way of life. I never said charity was a bad thing, but theft is immoral, even by biblical standards.

Private education is possible and I believe is much more cost effective and higher quality (no forced unions = no tenure = kids actually being educated by teachers who want to teach). National Defense is difficult but in a Stateless world (I know hurr durr Utopia, but I'm talking about the principle of it) there wouldn't be need for a National Defense because there would be no reason for war if private property is understood.

When you look at ethical principles you have to start small and work bigger. If the philosophy fails and becomes inconsistent with itself or reality at any point throughout the process, you can call it objectively wrong. You can assume there are 20 billion people in the examination, but forcing another to provide healthcare is still wrong because of the fundamentals. That's universality, the scientific method. If gravity doesn't work when you have two rocks but you gather 20 billion rocks and suddenly it works, then you can't say that gravity is universal. In the same way, if the philosophy that it's moral to steal money to pay for healthcare doesn't work on two people, then you can't say that it's a fundamental human right.

And with your example, you are assuming that money comes from thin air. Money comes from exchange of goods or services. If you are not helping somebody out by providing a good or service, then you do not deserve their goods or services. That's reality. If they help you it's out of their own good will then you should be appreciative of that and seek to help them out right back, but you cannot force somebody to give you a good or service and call it morally right.

Also, again, Hippocratic Oath. Doctors take an Oath that they will take in anybody in need. They used to give free service to people in need, but that's changed due to laws.
User avatar #154 to #153 - archangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/13/2014) [-]
I'm sorry bro you just go round in circles. I've given you seven reasons to sundown why it's moral imperative to provide free health care so the poorest can access it. You have fallen short to dismantle any of those reason other than you should not have to pay taxes which I agree especially when it comes to maintaining such a huge military but education and healthcare I would hold firm. Other than that you try to make the same point unfairness of paying for others for salary reason would be unfair I explain tax brackets cover this. So I guess we have to agree to disagree.
User avatar #155 to #154 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/13/2014) [-]
It's not imperative to provide free healthcare. Healthcare didn't even exist until somebody came up with the idea on the free market during the Industrial Revolution just over 100 years ago while society has been going for well over 5,000 years.

And "Free" Healthcare is an irrational statement. It's simply manipulative language that goes against reality. It's like saying "Free" food. Somebody has to grow it. Having somebody grow "Free" food would be what we call slavery, but even then slavery isn't free because you have to feed the slaves. The logic is incredibly backwards.

And you have not provided a single moral principle that shows the morality of the use of force to provide healthcare. If you're going to argue a moral stance you have to pass it through tests of logic. Otherwise you're just spewing nonsense.
User avatar #156 to #155 - archangel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Dude the free healthcare is moral imperative we're too advanced as a society to leave the poor to suffer or to die you are the one spewing none sense, if you think I'm advocating not paying doctors or pharmaceutical companies, that's why you have the tax you have been arguing against , and it works check Canada , check Denmark even when it's not great the systems fair. To be honest I tired of trying to reach you because all your arguments advocate greed. We are on two very different ends of the spectrum you just are not capable of understanding . Humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what, and work together for a better future this can only be proliferated through ethical and fair government practice , hence aNational Health service.
User avatar #157 to #156 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
If there's a tax then stop calling it free. It's theft. When you say it's free you're just being manipulative.

And there are plenty of ways to provide care for those in need without having to threaten people with prison or death for not paying a tax. If we really are advanced enough as a society to provide care to those in need, then we will damn well do it without putting a gun to everybody's head.

And what do you mean humanity needs to stop clawing over who gets what when you are clearly advocating for the use of violence through the State to get what somebody wants. That's absolute madness. In a free society resources are allocated to those who work for it. That's the product of free trade. The products of the State are lobbyists, politicians and welfare junkies, which is what I assume you mean by "clawing over who gets what."

If I'm a peanut farmer and you're an apple farmer, and I give you a bag of peanuts in exchange for an apple, then you now have a bag of peanuts and I have an apple. We're both happy with the trade, otherwise it would not have happened. Now you want to bring the State into this because you feel that some other guy needs a share of the food. Well, why doesn't he come to me and ask for some peanuts voluntarily? Is he so crippled he can't even do that? If that's the case then there's most likely a charity that caters to his needs and seeks people out like that. Why doesn't he offer to work with me in exchange for a share of the peanuts? Is that too much to ask for?

And it's the same thing for healthcare. If I'm a doctor and you're an apple farmer, and I agree to give you healthcare when you need it in exchange for a bag of apples each month, then we are both better off. However, somebody else does not have the right to put a gun to my head and force me to give them healthcare just because I'm giving you healthcare. They should work for it, or if I'm feeling generous and they ask, I will provide the care for them voluntarily.
User avatar #105 to #49 - turtletroll
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
for £12 a month.

Who is complaining
User avatar #82 to #49 - cousin
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Copy and pasta 'cause **** you:

Once upon a time I could maybe respect their social policies, but these days it's just ******* lunacy.

Do you know what a barrier for entry is.

A barrier for entry is a regulation that prevents new companies from competing with established corporations.

The example here would be for a healthcare corporation to purchase a few whores in congress and then get them to pass a law saying no healthcare company can exist without 10 million dollars in a bank to pay-out for medical lawsuits. To protect customers and make sure they can sue if they get screwd obvs, nothing to do with banning new companies from getting started.

Way too many ******* people on the internet think their ********** opinions and half-assed musings can stand up to scrutiny just because they nail their colors to an ideology like libertarianism and espouse it.

The libertarians have an admirable stance on social issues, but that's been subsumed by Humanism these days. Now, libertarianism is useless. It's a dead ideology espoused by pseudo intellectual toddlers.
User avatar #137 to #82 - Yardie
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
So basically you're saying that Government controls can be used for bad therefore we should use Government controls in order to let those Government controls control the Government controls that could be bad, and since as human beings we have pretense of knowledge we absolutely know which Government controls will be good and which are bad, and we will always vote for the good and never for the bad.

A bit irrational, don't you think? It's nice to say that Government can help people, but when it's done nothing but screw everything up with war and oppression for the past 5,000 years or so, it's sort of hard to believe.
User avatar #41 - cumbersome
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
No, if this was set in the uk, he would still be in the waiting room by season 3
User avatar #89 to #41 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
i don't get why americans use that defense, I've never had to wait more than 15 minutes more than the appointed time for a doctor's appointment
User avatar #109 to #89 - leonhardt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Yeah I'm sure you've had cancer loads of times
User avatar #128 to #109 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
yeah it's totally soviet russia for cancer patients here, sure, absolutely
User avatar #129 to #128 - leonhardt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
So how many times have you had cancer
User avatar #130 to #129 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
you don't have common knowledge about your country's healthcare?
User avatar #131 to #130 - leonhardt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
So you're not going to answer my question?
User avatar #132 to #131 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
i've never had caner
User avatar #133 to #132 - herecomesjohnny
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
well, that and cancer
User avatar #70 to #41 - ninjaroo
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Speaking as an Australian, I've never had any problems like that and don't know anyone who has.
User avatar #74 to #41 - geneeeeeric
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Am I the only Brit that has never had to wait for anything in terms of healthcare?
User avatar #87 to #74 - sketchE
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
im an american who had to wait for an hour to be treated for a potentially fatal heart condition, yuve got your whole country coming in over the sniffles
User avatar #120 to #87 - godtherapist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Except that it's not 'first come first served.' Care is based on NEED.
User avatar #136 to #120 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
what if you dont know the need? i had no idea what i had before i got called back. all i knew was i had chest pains with trouble breathing. are you going to tell the person with stomach pains, who just has gas, to wait a few minutes while we figure out whats wrong? do you kick someone whos been waiting back into the waiting room if someone with more need comes in? you want to say its not first come first serve but it kind of is
User avatar #140 to #136 - godtherapist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Triage nurses and doctors have list of symptoms that get priority.
User avatar #142 to #140 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
i guess thats something but what happens when all the rooms are filled up?
User avatar #143 to #142 - godtherapist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I have never been in a situation where all the beds are full. I would assume that they would treat you wherever they had space.
User avatar #146 to #143 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
thank you thats all ive been asking. no one ever wants to answer that question they all just say its not going to happen or need before greed and the never respond to what if theyre all full.

i just dont think it would work in america. mainly because our government is nicer to foreigners than others are. for instance if i moved to europe right now i couldnt own property. but you can come over to the us buy property and leave it to rot and the government wont do ****
User avatar #124 to #120 - geneeeeeric
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Potentially fatal heart condition sounds serious enough to go sooner than later though, right? If this was an English hospital You would be waiting purely because all their doctors are busy with crashes and stuff where surgery is REQUIRED the moment they enter the hospital, which GREATLY varies as to which hospital you are in.
User avatar #125 to #124 - godtherapist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
1. Triage Doctors and Surgeons are not the same thing.
2. TRIAGE DOCTORS AND SURGEONS ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

There is no way for a cardiac doctor to be 'busy with the sniffles' because they don't deal with those people.
User avatar #134 to #125 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
so you guys have just **** ton of doctors sitting around doing nothing? is the wait time problem related to waking them out of naps or something
User avatar #126 to #125 - geneeeeeric
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Meh, yeah good point.. Being slow today. It's the strange weather were having today. It can't ******* decide to be rainy or sunny, so I keep snapping from sleepy to awake.

Still tho, there won't be many doctors and surgeons that are not capable in taking care for others outside their "main" profession. If you live in the UK, you would know that just because he may specialist in cardiac related issues he wouldn't be capable of being a standard doctor to everyone else... in fact it's sort of a requirement. If he dropped what he was doing just because someone with a more specialized issue arrived he would get a law suit for mistreating his other patients, providing it wasn't a FATAL situation for the new arrival. If the person he was dealing with just needed a quick check-up and the new arrival was desperate for the attention then that's more or less the ONLY respectable reason to just leave who you are tending to. Just because I only mentioned surgery, it doesn't mean you can leave the point that it only involves surgery, it happens in every other respect too. Also if you were in the hospital for the "sniffles" you deserve to be untreated, we have doctor's practices to go to if were merely feeling ill and getting legitimate hospitalized attention for the common cold wastes EVERYONE'S time and money.

In a lot of countries how fast you get treated (and how carefully) depends purely on how much money you have. There could be someone dying in front of you, if you have more money to pay they would sooner treat your "sniffles" rather than treat the dying guy. Admittedly these countries tend to be more 3rd world but it still happens.
User avatar #90 to #87 - kaiizel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Actually us Brits don't like to bother the doctor over petty things. Sucks to be you, though.
User avatar #123 to #90 - geneeeeeric
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
We don't go to the doctor... for some stupid reason they go to A&E instead, wasting valuable time for sure, but I've never had it so bad that I have actually had to WAIT for something.

Also, the amount of amerifags who don't understand how free healthcare works in FJ is just comical. Some get it, and defend countries such as the UK and Canada when people shout ignorance everywhere about how it doesn't work in any way, but the rest.. oh the laughter in the room...
User avatar #135 to #123 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
the thing is ive had free healthcare. im military and while most military hospitals are just bad on their own its the concept i see. twenty people come in with varying things. no one knows exactly what it is just the symptoms. these people dont come in at the same time. so when someone comes in with a minor problem are they just told to wait in case a more serious issue arises?
User avatar #141 to #135 - geneeeeeric
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
You're missing the concept of British healthcare entirely, and appeared to have ignored most of the provided information in previous posts. I'm not going to both with this argument any more as a result. If you wish to be ignorant, then so be it but don't use it in an argument, it just rustles my jimmies.
User avatar #145 to #141 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
also dont ******* act high and mighty when someone else had to correct you on your own system
User avatar #144 to #141 - sketchE
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
heres the thing boyo. if you wish for us amerifags to learn then try educating us. as i said ive used free healthcare if yours is different inform me. i dont expect people to know exactly how our health system works but i dont act like a pompous cunt because they dont know we treat everyone then bill them later. its the dumb ***** who bite off more than they can chew and are just literally retarded who cant survive
#19 - douthit
Reply -20 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
What ridiculous ******* logic. There's no such thing as a free lunch--somebody always pays. With "free" healthcare, you're just putting it on your kids' and grandkids' tabs.
User avatar #54 to #19 - noisia
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It's not really free because you pay a "national insurance" straight from your paycheck.
Sure, this means that I'm essentially paying for someones treatment who doesn't have a job, but I don't mind about that. It just means that I'd also be safe if I lost my job at any point.
I do mind, however, having to pay for the slut who has 8 multi-coloured kids and no job that's living in a house bigger than mine just because she can't keep her legs closed or get her string of one night stands to wear a ******* condom.
I'd happily pay for an unemployed guy's cancer treatment instead.
User avatar #92 to #54 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Well then it's not a principle you're talking about, but rather just your preferences.
User avatar #110 to #19 - plataeiou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
>See economics in action
>Swell with Hayek pride
User avatar #55 to #19 - pineapplechunkss
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
lets play a game, Its called spot the american
User avatar #56 to #55 - ruinsage
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I don't want to, there's no challenge
#103 to #56 - mamaluweegee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It could actually be a bit more difficult for some people. For instance, I'm an American but I understand taxes are a thing.
User avatar #112 to #103 - pineapplechunkss
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
found one
#119 to #112 - mamaluweegee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Well.  You're not wrong.
Well. You're not wrong.
User avatar #111 to #55 - leonhardt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
They're easy to spot based on their vocal understanding of taxes and economics.
User avatar #20 to #19 - infernis
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
And going bankrupt because of having to pay for medical treatment (see content) doesn't affect your kids and grandkids negatively at all?
#53 to #20 - anon id: e9d5d5ee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
yeah well people think they have a God given right to healthcare and they should live to be 90. personally I wouldn't put any kind of debt on my kid.
#94 to #53 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I can't believe your red thumbs. People are insane.   
   
It's completely immoral to put someone in debt against their will. When anyone else does it we call it fraud, but when done by government people call it sound fiscal policy. It takes a willing ignorance of reality and logic to defend this stuff as sane.   
   
Principles are universal. If you say that it's wrong to indebt someone else against their will, then it's always wrong. Even if Bush does it, even if Obama does it, even if 500 millionaires in a circular room in Washington DC do it. Principles apply always.
I can't believe your red thumbs. People are insane.

It's completely immoral to put someone in debt against their will. When anyone else does it we call it fraud, but when done by government people call it sound fiscal policy. It takes a willing ignorance of reality and logic to defend this stuff as sane.

Principles are universal. If you say that it's wrong to indebt someone else against their will, then it's always wrong. Even if Bush does it, even if Obama does it, even if 500 millionaires in a circular room in Washington DC do it. Principles apply always.
User avatar #21 to #20 - douthit
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It's taxation without representation, which we fought a war over. Or your medical bills are just charged to someone else. Theft by any other name...
User avatar #36 to #21 - lockstin
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Is that what Fox is teaching these days?
User avatar #22 to #21 - infernis
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It's not theft if it's done for common welfare.
People being able to get treatment regardless of their financial situation is in everyone's interest. This doesn't seem what Obamacare is about tho, judging from how many of you Murricans are unhappy with it.
User avatar #113 to #22 - leonhardt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Actually it is still theft.
Robin Hood was still a thief even though he used his gains for "public welfare".
User avatar #23 to #22 - douthit
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
No, I think it still is. The definition of theft isn't contingent upon what's done with the stolen property once it's stolen. If I knock you out, take your wallet, and give it to a homeless guy, it's still theft.
User avatar #24 to #23 - infernis
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Yes, by that logic, all tax is theft.
I'd still rather my tax money goes to make sure I'll get proper treatment should I fall ill rather than finance "wars on terror" and inmates (is your money being used to pay for inmates' needs not theft?)
#25 to #24 - douthit
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I do believe that all taxation is theft by definition. Seems like all forced or coerced transfer of property is theft. Taxation is just what we call it so we don't have to think about 30% of our income being stolen each paycheck.

I'm on board with you about the prisons and warfare state, but I'm also against the welfare state. I absolutely support your right to be against the war on terror, and for your right to not pay for what you find repugnant. Surely you afford me the same respect to not pay for the things I'd rather not pay for?
User avatar #58 to #25 - ruinsage
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Instead of considering it theft Which is moronic , consider it rent for allowing you to live in the country. In return you get:

Fire department
Police protection
Military protection
Education
Health care Unless you live in a backwater country
Infrastructure
etc.

If you don't want to pay taxes in order to be a member of society, go to Somalia.
#98 to #58 - douthit
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Do you realize that calling my argument moronic, and then providing absolutely no refutation of my argument does nothing for your point? It's a logical fallacy to call my argument a name, and say that it's therefore invalid.

And the Somalia thing is just so old and tired, and is just a way of saying that people who don't agree with you should go away. Also a weak argument. It makes no more sense to tell me that because I'm against violence that I should move to Somalia, than it would be for me to tell you that if you like "free" healthcare so much that you should move to England.
#108 to #98 - ruinsage
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
As you clearly don't have a counterargument, you prove that your opinion is moronic, and that you are a moron.
As you clearly don't have a counterargument, you prove that your opinion is moronic, and that you are a moron.
User avatar #127 to #108 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Counterargument? Counter to what? All you said was my idea is moronic.
User avatar #29 to #25 - infernis
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Well, personally I'm fine with paying taxes. Or I would be, if not so much of the money would get wasted and the middle-class would actually profit from having a strong national economy. I'm from Germany, and while our economy is going strong like hardly ever before, what the average person gets paid still hasn't increased at all, because cold progression, among other things.

>Surely you afford me the same respect to not pay for the things I'd rather not pay for?

Sure, while I recognize the benefits of having 'free' healthcare, and believe it to be a good thing (in the form it's done in my country), I can also understand that what works for us doesn't have to work for Murrica and if the public doesn't want it, it shouldn't be forced upon them.
#28 to #25 - infernis
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #37 to #25 - lockstin
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Question, what would you say to the idea of an optional 'free' healthcare tax? everyone who wants to pays the tax, but only those who pay the tax get the benefits? what if this were also applied to everything else? like roads and whatnot?
#47 to #37 - anon id: b7ad3590
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
That exists. It's called Insurance.
User avatar #148 to #47 - lockstin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/12/2014) [-]
Since when does insurance cover roads?
#26 to #23 - anon id: 767d72e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Except it's not theft since you agree to by it being a citizen of a country and enjoying the effects: such as roads, schools, firefighters, police, and using a machine that was built by the government and whose money spurns the advancement of said technologies and not to mentioned fueled by an electrical system operated, created, and paid for by the government. Would be pretty difficult to do that if they didn't collect taxes, wouldn't it?
#27 to #26 - douthit
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
First, those things could surely exist without a centralized violent authority. It makes sense that if people will vote for policies which forcibly extract property from them to do something, that they'd voluntarily contribute money to do the same thing. The violent monopoly that is government contributes nothing, and only makes the issue slower, more complicated, and more expensive. Anarchist philosophers have written entire books about this "practical anarchy" (itself the name of one such book), so I'm not gonna repost the entire theory and argument here.

Second, the government doesn't own the land they claim to. No man owns anything by simply claiming it. Even the common law principle of homesteading speaks against this. The government (simply a collection of men) no more owns any city, county, state, or country by claiming it than I can own the moon by the same means. Saying the government owns it means that no individual really owns anything, but is rather just renting it from the biggest bully on the block. A pitiful argument.
#114 to #27 - anon id: cddf2783
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
You're right and it's sad that eurofags will thumb you down by default for pointing out how their "OMG LOL MUH FREE HEALTHCARE" isn't actually free.
#35 to #27 - anon id: 767d72e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I also never said anything about ownership. I said they've built, funded, and maintained lots of things you use regularly, which just happens to be a pretty common definition of ownership. They didn't just claim the west, they literally paid people to move west and colonize it, and then paid for most of it to be made livable. Or since it is paid for by tax dollars, you could say that everybody owns it, and the U.S Constitution is what people have agreed to, and that allows the government to be the people's representative. Sort of the same way a stock broker works. You give him your money and you let him invest it for you.

Also, without a government, there is no guarantee that someone will enforce your ownership of something. Nothing I said is anywhere close to "I don't believe in private ownership." Sure, if you buy internet access, you have the right to that service, but you have to acknowledge that it's all made possible by your government.
User avatar #91 to #35 - douthit
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
You don't GIVE the government your money--they TAKE it. There's a huge difference there. The force is what makes it theft. Force is the difference between surgery and assault, lovemaking and rape, and in this case--charity and theft.

How can anyone say with a straight face that government exists to defend your property or rights? Governments are the single largest offender in these categories. We're worried about muggers, so instead we get 30% of our income stolen each week. No private entity can do that. Absolutely laughable. When society finally evolves past the existence of the state, people will wonder how we tied our shoes in the morning.
#34 to #27 - anon id: 767d72e9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Maybe they could exist, but they probably wouldn't be at all the same and probably would be inferior because the government doesn't have to make a profit because its investors (tax payers) can't realistically leave due to the legal authority a government has. Without government influence, there is no way to enforce quality standards for public goods either. Also, why would a business build an interstate highway? It doesn't have the authority to extract money to pay for it

And either way, you'd have to pay for them. Most simply put, you are buying services from the government that your tax dollars pay for.

Also, technology has advanced much faster thanks to government involvement for the simple reason that a centralized government can pool a vast amount of resources together at a much greater rate and with great reliability. A high credit rating helps! No one would have enough money to dish out to build and maintain a comprehensive electrical grid that spans across several states.
#57 to #21 - ruinsage
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I don't value the opinions of anarchists, and I doubt anyone else does.
I don't value the opinions of anarchists, and I doubt anyone else does.
#95 to #57 - douthit
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Well, you've completely dissected and eliminated my points with that superior logic. Poisoning the well fallacy.
#15 - lamarsmithgot
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
INB4
User avatar #14 - heartlessrobot
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Then he dies because he had to wait 10 years because everyone's lining up for "free" healthcare and there's no one available to treat him.
#17 to #14 - anon id: 0b1e9c23
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
People are already dieing to see a doctor now!
User avatar #18 to #14 - infernis
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
This is totally the situation here in Europe. Except it's not
#59 to #14 - ruinsage
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Because no one in the US has ever waited in line at the doctors office/hospital   
   
No wait, that's moronic
Because no one in the US has ever waited in line at the doctors office/hospital

No wait, that's moronic
User avatar #51 to #14 - jokexplain
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
that's just false, I'm afraid.
User avatar #40 - axeul
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
I swear I saw this before with Canada. Did someone change it to UK?
#42 to #40 - victorianfancyman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
it was uk before as well
User avatar #122 to #40 - godtherapist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
It's literally any industrialized county but America.
#13 - kulamia
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
"What kind of BARBARIC society-..."

I always hate when people(both conservative and liberal) misuse descriptive words to polarize something. Apparently now I have a tiny brain and swollen brow, running around grunting and clobbering animals. Why? Because I think that when you make money from a job, you can use some of that money to buy your own insurance. I guess I am also a murderer because I want more money to go to space exploration than to people who make terrible choices in life. Not trying to start a debate here, it's FJ not DebateJunk

You can call me an asshole, and that's subjective. But when people take any subject and attach descriptive words to make it seem that anyone not on their side is just so horrible is ridiculous to me.
User avatar #99 to #13 - antiponiesuser
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
asshole.

that being said, if you were born into the world, im pretty sure you would like to have some kind of mother who takes care of you and gives you nutrients and ****, instead of being abandoned because you didnt come into the world with 500 bucks in your arms, you lazy piece of sheeeeit.

For wealthy people who lived in the same place over and over again, paying for healthcare is nothing weird, because the ******* are rich as ****, so they will still have money.

But what if you are a average human beign who has no money and wants to start a life? You must be careful not to die, or not to suffer accidents or whatever.

This leads to poor people = hard life = cannot focus in being rich = for ever poor people

rich people = easy life = can focus on being more and more rich = never poor except if imbecile aka wasting money in lucky games or whatnot
User avatar #100 to #99 - antiponiesuser
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Think of it as videogames always forever.

Free users = you get ****.

Paying user = here is ultra gear of world wrecker +9999
User avatar #50 to #13 - jokexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
it's not necessarily correct that american society is barbaric.
however, it is an irrefutable fact that the rest of the world thinks some aspects of america are barbaric, like the healthcare system, or the prison system, or the lack of maternity leave etc.
#107 - mooyourdead
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
He was cooking meth to LEAVE HIS FAMILY MONEY after he died.... It was not to cover his bills, Hank said he would cover all medical bills in full as well as the Mr.Black guy from GreyMatter Corp. IN FACT Walter said that Mr.Black was paying for it when he lied to Skyler about it in season 3 or 4.
User avatar #16 - meganinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Why use UK as an example?
User avatar #30 to #16 - youngfreddy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Because UK has free healthcare.
User avatar #32 to #30 - meganinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
And other countries dont?
#45 to #32 - pickledpicklespls
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Cause Canadian health care sucks.
User avatar #33 to #32 - youngfreddy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/11/2014) [-]
Well, come on it's just for the purpose of the strip. I don't see why using UK as an example is any worse than using Canada or any other country that has free healthcare as an example.
[ 156 comments ]
Leave a comment