Wars cost billions and kill people. Negotiated resolutions save lives and spend revenues frugally. Elitist "FOR PROFIT" health care costs billions to care for sick people, whereas health care for all is basically preventative medicine, and is designed to keep people healthy. It costs less to have healthy populace, and a healthy, strong population is an essential component of national defense.
2007-10-19 08:36:03 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I appreciate all the intelligent responces.
2007-10-19 15:14:38 · update #1
1) Who are we going to negotiate with? The people that chop reporters heads off and wear masks in their little home movies so we can't identify them? 2) If paying for YOUR health care is going to cost ME money that I could use for my family, I am against "healthcare for all." Get a job.
2007-10-19 08:41:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Negotiated peace is the best solution in some cases. But it does have a great cost: time. In cases where lives are being lost already, that time is more costly than billions of dollars. They CAN save lives, but again, if they're being lost already, there's no point. Plus, negotiated peace is less likely to be effective, if someone doesn't have an upperhand. "A good compromise leaves everyone angry." It's just going to stave off conflict for a while. "Speak softy and carry a big stick." Try to negotiate the peace, but be prepared to fight for it if necessary.
A little analogy: Say a person barracaded himself in the middle of the street and threatened to start shooting everyone. Negotiated peace could work there; finding out what he wanted, and working it out. But suppose this person was walking down the street and randomly shooting people. The first person who tries to talk them into stopping is shot. Would negotiated peace work here? I think not. Talking might work if it was accompanied by firepower capable of destroying the shooter. But simply incapacitating the shooter would stop the problem, and save many lives.
"Elitist 'for profit' programs" may cost billions of dollars. But where does that money go? To American individuals who put the money BACK into the economy by way of taxes and spending it on things.
You want nationalized healthcare? Look at Great Britain. People there wait years for treatment. Prostate cancer victims who are over a certain age simply are not treated. Does that sound like an ideal system? Not to me.
2007-10-19 08:59:27 · answer #2 · answered by Sarah S 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In a perfect world, these would be great arguments. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.
Sometime peace cannot be negotiated. How long have arabs and isralies been fighting? Some disputes are so ingrained into a culture that they just cannot be negotiated.
I really don't think that anyone is against healthcare for all. The argument comes from how that will be implemented. The federal government has shown again and again its ability to screw up pretty much anything. I don't see how they will magically get proficient by trying to provide healthcare. Ask anyone who has used military healthcare (which is pretty much what the government would provide with universal healthcare). Long waits for everything. Multiple levels of bureacracy to get anything above basic services. Denial of service if you don't meet certain criteria.
That's what would be given to the majority of the population. Those with the means (the wealthy, especially the politicians pushing this plan) would pay out of pocket for private physicians to get quick superior service. The rest of us schlubs would be no better off than we are now.
As for "elitist for profit" health care, the VAST majority of hospitals are not for profit institutions. These generally include religious affliliated hospitals, community/county hospitals and university hospitals.
2007-10-19 08:53:31 · answer #3 · answered by Mark B 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No to both questions. Of course if peace is negotiated there will be no armed conflict. But that is not always possible is it? As for health care for all? Great dream. Just no viable solutions that actually work. Anywhere in the world.
2007-10-19 10:33:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
All for negotiated peace provided we're the ones determining the specifics of the negotiations.
All for health care for everyone so long as it's not the taxpayers having to pay for everyone who can't or won't get their own insurance.
Health Care is a Business ergo it is FOR PROFIT, this is a capitalist society after all.
2007-10-19 10:55:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
our military presence in Iraq and Iran was a plan that was set up a long time ago!!!
the Iraqis and Iranians are just pawns in the oil domination game!!!
this is well documented, and there is plenty of evidence that bush exploited 911 to get the plan going!!!
he figured the whole country was a bunch of uninformed ignorant flag-waving patriots who would follow him blindly to the end!!!
some still are but most of us have figured him out and want him out!!!
the drug companies and hospitals and doctors are at the top of the list for getting political favors!!!
they are not goin to give up their piece of the pie easily!!!
once these peaple get comfortable and dug in its almost impossible to get them to change their ways!!!
you can find all this information, its out there if ya do some diggin!!!
the mainstream has lost all its credibilty a long time ago, ya ever watch the morning news on regular channels, its sickening!!!
2007-10-19 09:15:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes to both. If the negotiated peace means that you have to adopt some entirely unsatisfactory policy (such as universal Islam), conflict is necessary. As for health care, I am happy to pay for mine, but have no desire to pay for yours; nor do I ask you to pay for mine -- any more than I ask you to pay for my food or rent.
2007-10-19 08:59:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i can certainly be against health care when it takes confiscatory taxes to be mismanaged by a liberal whack job controlled administrative authority, ESCPECIALLY when i can manage for myself thanks. and as for armed conflict, if you think for one second your going to negotiate with al qaeda you have lots more serious issues here than iraq. and ive successfully run my own business and raised a family for over twenty five years so i think that qualifies me as being intelligent....escpecially since I DONT VOTE LIBERAL.
2007-10-19 09:31:27 · answer #8 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ditto to the Thing!
2007-10-19 08:50:24 · answer #9 · answered by LadySable 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋