Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolution

Discussion in 'The Real World' started by spike, Oct 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spike

    spike New Member

    Here's the whole quote. I thought it deserved it's own thread after the eugenics one.

    It's an interesting argument. I think it's seriously flawed but it's interesting. Worth discussing anyway.

    I'm going to start with my girlfriend. She's an engineer, run a plant, been a leader, saved lives, volunteered for a year at the animal shelter, tutored children, started a business with robots. She's hot, 5' 8" 125lbs. Natural selection? Men and women hit on her constantly, stalk her, shit kinda sucks. She's got a smile that just attracts people to her.

    She has genetic health issues. None of her health issues are from personal choices. She had to leave her engineering job due to her health. Her realistic option has been Medicare. Thank you for Medicare.

    In RM's evolutionary outlook she should die instead of some idiot that lucked out with a job that took care of them? Why is healthcare tied to your job?
     
  2. Frodo

    Frodo Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    It is not. It is a benefit offered as extra compensation to employees. You can actually buy health insurance outside the work place. Worst case, it is another car payment.

    Now, if the GF is one of the 12 million that have a problem, let's talk about how to help her and not destroy what we have by giving the government total control over its citizen's lives!! I think it is possible to cover these people without slamming everyone else upside the head with the Gov't 2x4. Let's start with tort reform and open markets that allow health insurance to be bought across state lines.
     
  3. spike

    spike New Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    That is all true. If you're healthy. My girlfriend can't get private insurance due to her pre-existing conditions. I am working contract jobs and have private insurance. When I had full time work I had her covered but I haven't been able to find another full time gig.

    The contract jobs pay well but I just want her to have health insurance. She needs it now more than ever.

    She qualified for Medicare but now she's afraid to work in fear she might lose it. There's just wrong motivation in this system.


    I agree with that one. Some common ground. :thumbup:
     
  4. Gato_Solo

    Gato_Solo Out-freaking-standing OTC member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu


    Well...healthcare is tied to my job. Of course, I am active duty, and the US government has a vested interest in me staying healthy so they can send me out to an area I could get killed in with a clear conscience...;)

    That means "My soul may belong to God above, but my arse belongs to the DoD".
     
  5. spike

    spike New Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    Thanks Gato....great perspective to add.
     
  6. MrBishop

    MrBishop Well-Known Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    The pubnlic option isn't 'total control' - or anything remotely close to it. The public option is like welfare, but not paid for entirely by taxes. It's an alternative to the status quo..instead of using a health insurance company who's job is to make money, you'd be using health insurance who's job is to pay for treatment.

    Now...the single-payer option (everyone covered/paid fully by taxes) is closer to what you're worried about, I guess.

    The public option is health insurance that crosses state lines.
    Tort reform is not just for medical issues, and really should be handled separately, for the good of the economy in general.
     
  7. Professur

    Professur Well-Known Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    Spike, she sounds like a wonderful person, but how does that negate that she's an evolutionary failure? And as her problems are genetic, they're nearly certain to be passed on to her children. And their children. It may sound callus, but spending public dollars to keep her healthy is like putting scrap parts on a broken car... a short term solution to a long term problem. If her problem could be resolved permanently, by all means. But if it's just a matter of keeping her alive until something else kills her .....


    now, understand that that's not my personal view on the issue ... just my take on the 'evolutionary' argument.
     
  8. Frodo

    Frodo Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    See, there we have a solution already. It just need a little adjustment. We can come up with a deal where medicare covers insurance that costs more than "X" due to complications. You pay "X" and medicare covers the rest. No matter how bad your condition is, an insurance company will cover you for enough premium.

    We also need to put proration on all entitlements. No program should every "punish" a person for making an income. It should draw down gradually as your income goes up so you always have an incentive to work.
     
  9. Frodo

    Frodo Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    This is where we disagree. If the government pays for it, the government can, and will, ration it. If you can ration it you control it. That is too much empowerment. I would rather die in the gutter than be in a position of begging. It may be a comfortable cage, but it is a cage.

    How does this differ from medicare, medicaid, and VA? These programs did not kill the private option. The "public" option will.
     
  10. MrBishop

    MrBishop Well-Known Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    And if the option doesn't suit your needs now or after you begin it, you are FREE TO CHOOSE another option. No begging necessary...at least, no more begging than you would do with a regular insurance company. The difference? They can't drop you if you're no longer profitable.

    The public option won't kill the private one...it's still an option and not mandatory. What it is likely to do is make private insurance companies more conscious of their rates and coverage.

    Even in my country, where Medicare is free and automatic, insurance companies still thrive. Why? Because some people want to use private clinics...because some people want to go to another country and get treatment, because people want an extra safety net when travelling.
     
  11. ResearchMonkey

    ResearchMonkey Well-Known Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    Windy sounds like a very lovable and sweet person. Who doesn't admire someone willing to offer their time to engineer a better world and save the lives of disenfranchised kitty's.

    I would have to assume that her inheritable genetic malfunction has lead to a disability that qualifies her for medicare. If so I would want to know if it's likely that her immutable genetic mutation will be the cause of her early death during her child bearing years. If this is the case I would strongly advise she join a public support group and seriously consider her reproductive options like condoms and the pill. Does she really want to bring a child into the world condemned to suffer the same shortened life Windy is facing. I mean, what kind of selfish mother would want that for their child, their grand children? Who with a conscience would want to propagate evolutionary failure into the gene pool and weaken the species while being a burden on society when adoption serves as an exceptionally altruistic option. Its how the Darwin model and nature works, anything else is against the laws of nature. If- she is considering procreating with you, she should watch Rosemary's baby and understand the implications.

    As for treatment and cure. Is there any current treatment for her condition that will cure her of her afflictions? Is there any research being done on the issue or has the money been shifted to AID's research which has been problem for a number of grant funded research programs due to a number self-interest lobby's. (Thank goodness for the private research projects being done by the private sector). I would look for open clinical trials that may be helpful and consider them carefully as they inherently have risk involved.

    There are bureaucrats in the current Administration that would find her to be a good candidate for sterilization. I completely disagree with that invasion of her freedoms even if she is a liberal. Of course if she does get pregnant she always has the option to kill the unique living genetic entity growing within her body. I do find this approach to be very selfish, irresponsible and a barbaric form of birth control.

    Oh, and I notice she does have insurance because of title II and/or XVI, the system is working.

    So in conclusion: I would say that if her life cycle is limited with an end in sight, she should spend what time she has left living life and discovering all the beauty she can find and not spend it waiting for for some socialist political ideology to save her. in short; find a spirituality that fulfills her, move to Canada, dump you, buy a puppy and enjoy every minute of her life.

    I wish Windy the very best and hope that she finds peaceful acceptance of her final fate as the world is a dangerous and beautiful place. Embrace it for what is.






    As another thought: since she is hot, there is always internet prOn. It pays extremely well and people like Marky-mark live for it. It has the potential to pay for all her health care needs as well as travel to exotic hotels. You never know, you might be a wonderful videographer.
     
  12. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    Government Regulations.

    1946.
    The whole world got better. People went to work. Uncle Sam had limited wages (off hand, I forget the reason). So, in order to attract better workers, companies had to rely on alternatives. Paying medical insurance became a common perk for decent jobs.

    In time, these perks trickled down to become union demands. Soon enough, everybody wanted their employer to may for their insurance. Which, for a large part, they did.

    Then along come the early 80's. Somebody got the idea that "well care" would be cheaper than sick care. So the HMO took off. Insurance companies & doctors & the wealthy & those who paid attention warned that the five dollar doctor visit would bite us in the ass. It did. We've raised an entire generation to believe that cheap medical care is a right. A generation that goes to the ER for a cold & asks for medication to get their dick up, regrow their receding hairline, calm their children & make them happy.

    Guess what. You got what you wanted.

    Happy?
     
  13. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    I'd still like an answer to...

    If we get public option healthcare run by the fedreal government, why do we need medicare/medicaid?
     
  14. 2minkey

    2minkey bootlicker

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    um, pictures?

    nah seriously sounds almost like mine in many respects. (engineer, managed performance metrics for plants, did a bunch of charitable shiznit, hot, boys and girls both like her... mine's a little taller...)

    nevertheless i fail to see how we could have public health care for all in a nation of selfish, whining pussies... "oh no, you're going to tax me an extra $5 a month. but i want a new plasma TV." ("but please, let me help drive the nation into further massive debt through my support of moronic and pointless wars that go waaaay negative on the cost:benefit thingy.")

    really, how could that possibly work out?
     
  15. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    You, sir, are welcome to share your wealth in any way you see fit. Just do not demand others follow your footsteps.
     
  16. 2minkey

    2minkey bootlicker

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    wouldn't want to keep you from that shiny new donkey you wanna buy.

    mine mine mine me me me!!!!!
     
  17. Gonz

    Gonz molṑn labé Staff Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    I earned it, I have the right to do with it as I see fit
     
  18. Cerise

    Cerise Well-Known Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    Windy?? Sir, you have got to be shittin' me.

    Everyone knows it's Windy. :shrug:
     
  19. spike

    spike New Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    I'm with you there.
     
  20. spike

    spike New Member

    Re: Free health care to all clearly goes against natural selection, Darwin, and evolu

    Yeah, the evolutionary argument is a new one.

    Evolutionary failure? Hell no. She's intelligent, good looking, kind, ambitious, and a very productive member of society. Those are traits that should be passed on and make her attractive to people. Her illness is treatable but expensive. It's also very unlikely to be passed on unless the father also at least shared the trait.

    There are fat ugly stupid lazy people that don't aspire to anything greater than mopping up puke but don't have an illness. In this evolutionary view of healthcare if they do happen to get sick maybe we shouldn't treat them?

    Our society has advanced to the point where many illnesses are treatable if you have access to healthcare. I would argue that in the current state of our evolution that intelligence is a more valuable trait than not having a treatable illness. So what section of society do you deny healthcare to make advancement?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page