This Dude Has Big Balls--No, Literally [Pic]

Submitted by: madest 6 years ago in Misc

Dude has a problem and no health insurance; as a result, problem has worsened. They weigh 150lbs. [Clothed, But NSFWy]
There are 106 comments:
Male 3,482
[quote]If I choose not to purchase insurance, I have chosen to assume the risk myself.[/quote]
F*ck you.

If you choose not to purchase insurance, end up hospitalized, and are unable to pay a massive bill, guess who ends up paying for it assh*le?

It`s the same as regulating any other theft, because it`s the exact same consequences: if YOU can`t or don`t pay for it, then WE (or the insurance companies, which will end up raising prices on US) WILL have to pay for it, because the hospitals will end up raising their prices to cover the loss.

If people would`ve paid their bills in the first place, the system wouldn`t be f*cked up and this wouldn`t have had to happen.

Now they have no choice, and everyone wants to b*tch. It`s just like a classroom - one little idiot causes problems, everyone suffers.

And it all starts with people like you: The one little idiot.
0
Reply
Male 15
Just wait a few years until you are actually old enough to have experienced paying tax for any length of time and have benefitted from what they actually pay for. Then you might be in a position to say they are a bad thing. After all, taxation has been around in some form or other for 4000 years. You`d better get your argument for its abolition a little deeper than "It`s wrong for the government to take things from me by force", when you know damn well something is given back in return; services.
0
Reply
Male 15
Now, I am not saying all privatised entities are bad, far from it. What I do believe however is that there is a place for entities that exist for the good of the people who use them and not the people who own them.
Why should someone profit from your illness?
Should McDonalds be able to buy the school where my kids go? What`s to stop them serving nothing but burgers for lunch?
Will my local park be bought by someone who will charge me an entrance fee? What if there are no alternative parks to go to?
Will people have to rely on charitable housing associations to provide comfortable affordable housing because council housing no longer exists?
0
Reply
Male 15
It sounds like you are talking about total capitalism, where everything is a commodity to be bought and sold, and there is no such thing as a public service. I`d be very wary of espousing a corporate-run future. I doubt there would be any elected leaders representing you, only people who have enough money to preside over everything you do for profit. Too poor to use my road? Find another one. That one too long? Tough. You want your child taught in this highly rated school? You`d better mortgage your kidney, because only the super rich can afford it. You only have enough money to scrape by? Bad luck, you`d better get used to having the worst of everything, and your kids had better get used to the idea of learning how to whittle wood at school.
Sorry, but I prefer my services to be provided by people I elect.
0
Reply
Male 525
Remember when I said that corporations would pay money to enforce contracts? Keep in mind that every single transaction you make that involves goods is a contract. When you hand money to a corner store owner, it is implied that he will give you cigarettes. If there was no government, there would be no implication that he would give you anything. If you didn`t pay a little extra to the government to secure every transaction you make, your contract would not be legally secure. You use the government everyday; this is something that would be paid for, or the free-market would crash overnight.

You`re still in the mindset that the government is a ruler of the people. Thomas Jefferson made it clear that the government is a servant, not a ruler.

A servant still needs to be paid. If you don`t pay, you don`t get a servant. What`s so hard to understand?
0
Reply
Male 525
It`s hard for you to conceive of it, since you`ve never lived in a world where a government was reduced to what it should be. The method I described (one of the many methods and probably not the best) is only applicable in a fully-free society.

When you said that voluntary funding would be protection racket, you were right: in today`s context. If we were to implement that system today, right now--it would certainly come to something like that. That`s why it would only work in a fully free society and it would be the last step in converting a welfare state to capitalism.
0
Reply
Male 525
That`s Appeal to Dismissal fallacy; just because I`m free to leave the country doesn`t invalidate my argument that the system is immoral.

It`s protection racket? Strange, because that`s what taxes seem like to me; the government threatens you with harm unless you pay them money for "protection."

Government services would be denied. Police and court; they wouldn`t be allowed to sue anyone and the like. Keep in mind that all property would be privately owned--this includes schools and roads.

It`s poorly thought out because I`m not a legal philosopher. However, it still doesn`t justify taxation.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Frankly, your alternative is very poorly thought out. It`s not a workable option in a large civilised society. It`s doable if humanity reverts to feudal villages with no government and vigilante justice, but we`re an advanced civilisation from those days now, and better for it.

[quote]Also, I`m an atheist. Is this relevant too?[/quote]
Not particularly then. It just always amuses me how the Christian Right use `socialism` like a swear word. Clearly they haven`t read the Bible very well at all, because Jesus` political inclinations are pretty clear, as exemplified by the passage I linked.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]the government FORCES people to pump cash into a system, regardless of whether they want to or not[/quote]
No. If you don`t want to, leave the country.
Abiding by a civilisation`s laws is one of the conditions of citizenship of civilisation. If you don`t want to, you`re free to go live somewhere else.

[quote]corporations would give portions of each sale to the government to protect them[/quote]
What you are describing is the first stage of a protection racket.

[quote]As for people who wouldn`t fund the government in a free society: they wouldn`t get government services[/quote]
What, are you going to post a policeman at every on-ramp to stop them using the road they haven`t paid for? Only send a squad car to get rid of their burglar after they provide their credit card details or membership number? Deny their children their right to education at the hands of a trained professional? Only appoint lawyers to criminal defendants who`re paid up?
0
Reply
Male 373
@M Archer, you`re not old enough for any of this to be bothering you, why can`t you be like a normal teenager and giggle at the giant balls?

Also `Still, that`s NOTHING to how much the Christian church raises in America alone--literally, billions...all in voluntary funds. `

THE christian church? there`s only one?
0
Reply
Male 525
herohair1978: It`s true that we have to pay Medicare--and I think Medicare should be abolished.

Force is the essential issue: the government FORCES people to pump cash into a system, regardless of whether they want to or not. That oversteps the bounds of the government--this is the crucial issue.

As for people who wouldn`t fund the government in a free society: they wouldn`t get government services--similar to the way if you don`t pay for dry-cleaning, you don`t get dry-cleaning. The government nowadays is able to track who does or doesn`t pay their taxes; they`d be able to track who and who doesn`t fund the government.

Besides, funding based on income isn`t the only way a government can be funded; corporations would give portions of each sale to the government to protect them, patents and copyrights would cost money, etc.

But this is largely irrelevant to the current conversation.
0
Reply
Male 586
He was on the Howard Stern show. After his interview, the Sirius medical channel doctors came to see him and are giving him free treatment. Look for the Sept 14, 2011 show
0
Reply
Male 15
"In a free society, people would recognize the importance of the police, courts and military so they would pay for them."

Wait, so you don`t have a problem with a few people funding something whilst many other people don`t pay for it because they choose not to, but you do have a problem with a few people funding something whilst many other people don`t pay for it because they can`t.

Or are you naive enough to imagine that if everyone had the choice to pay, everyone would? If everyone benefits from something that has been put in place for them, then everyone should be expected to make sure they contribute to it.

It`s fine to say "we are free to make the choice", but that choice will almost certainly lead to hordes of people who chooce not to pay for the very thing they are benefiting from. Doesn`t that make those people the spongers you appear to hate so much? How come it is suddenly fine if they sponge through choice rather than circumstan
0
Reply
Male 15
M_Archer
Yes, we`re required to pay if we earn. So? I didn`t say we weren`t. The NHS probably wouldn`t deny treatment to people who needed it i.e. life-threatening cases, but the patient would probably need to pay for that afterwards. That would be why tourists to the UK need their medical insurance in place as they haven`t paid into the system. They`d need to pay for treatment somehow.

And besides, didn`t you just say yesterday you pay FICA? Is that mandatory? It covers Medicare if I`m not mistaken, so when you say "That means you`re forced to give up money you`ve earned to pay for someone who hasn`t earned it.", surely that applies to you too? Except you lie to yourself about it.
You misunderstand one vital point: we do not pay NI tax to fund other people`s care, we pay it for when we ourselves need it in the future. People getting treatment on the NHS now have almost certainly spent years pumping cash into the system. They`ve paid their way.
0
Reply
Male 15
auburnjunky

"Here`s the problem. Obmam`s national healthcare will NOT end FICA, it will ADD A TAX to my income, and I WILL STILL have to pay for my own insurance.

It all adds up to about 60% of my earnings. drat!"

Damn that is a huge chunk of cash! That doesn`t make a national healthcare system bad though, it just makes Obama a money-grabbing swine. Expecting people to pay Health Insurance, FICA and National Healthcare is pretty much making people pay for the same thing three times.
I`m quite happy paying my 12% NI contribution that pays for my healthcare, pension and any other benefits I may need in the future such as disability etc (hope I never need that one).
0
Reply
Male 801
Looks like he stuck his balls in a microwave to be eligible for medicinal Marijuana.
0
Reply
Male 371
Anyone else reminded of south park?
0
Reply
Male 72
At this point...go ahead and castrate me... I really don`t want kids anyway...
0
Reply
Male 19
Because the internet is serious business duh!
0
Reply
Male 525
How much did Obama raise during his campaign? Seven hundred million? Keep in mind, every single penny was given voluntarily.

Still, that`s NOTHING to how much the Christian church raises in America alone--literally, billions...all in voluntary funds.

In a free society, people would recognize the importance of the police, courts and military so they would pay for them. There`s no reason to think people would buy insurance from insurance companies and those same people would not buy government protection.

@Sophismata: What do you mean flame war? We`re having a pleasant conversation. I guess that`s too much to ask of your tiny little juvenile brain to conceive of something like that.
0
Reply
Male 19
Post picture of man with big balls, time for a healthcare f-f-f-FLAME WAR!!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 163
he could just bounce arround on them as a form of transportation
0
Reply
Male 525
Government funding in a free society is a very complex legal issue and the actual implementation of such a system should be left to lawyers. Also, even if it wouldn`t work, I fail to see how the failure of that system would justify robbery.

Also, I`m an atheist. Is this relevant too?
0
Reply
Male 525
@almightybob1: Yeah...so if you don`t have an income, you still get healthcare i.e. you get an unearned service paid for with money expropriated from someone.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think most people would voluntary give 5% of their income to fund the police, courts and military. Additional money would come from patent fees and the enforcement of contracts.

I`m an American living in Canada. Incidentally, I`m also Canadian. How is this relevant?

I want to live in a society where the initiation of force is banned from all relationships. Your ideal society only sounds good if you`re a context-dropper; you forget to montion that in the society your propose, "looking after" would involve violating the rights of the productive people; it would involve making slaves of people who CAN take care of themselves.

I fail to see the difference between an armed robber and an IRS collection agent--I guess the former is more honest.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Basically, it boils down to what kind of society you want to live in.

I want to live in one that looks after people who can`t look after themselves, even when it`s not profitable to do so.


Are you a Christian, M_Archer? Because if so, you might want to read Matthew 25:34-45. Jesus would have loved the NHS.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]@almightybob1: Yup, it is a rant against taxation. I`m amazed that the statist propaganda has convinced you that taxation is the only way to fund a government that you cannot even CONCEIVE of a government funded by voluntary means.[/quote]
I can conceive it, and it would be a complete disaster. Nobody would ever pay if it were voluntary. You sound incredibly naive.

[quote]The NHS won`t deny treatment to someone who hasn`t paid? You`re mandated by law to pay to the NHS if you have an income.[/quote]
Those last 5 words answer your apparently incredulous question. If you don`t have an income, you haven`t paid towards the NHS, but they will still treat you.

[quote]life, liberty and happiness are AMERICAN ideals--to defend your right to these is to defend America and Americans[/quote]
Aren`t you from Canada?
0
Reply
Male 525
@MCMXCIII: Not true. The computer, the mouse and the keyboard you`re using: all probably made by people who are looking to make a profit. Profit is a selfish motive, yet it`s responsible for all the great things around you.

@almightybob1: Yup, it is a rant against taxation. I`m amazed that the statist propaganda has convinced you that taxation is the only way to fund a government that you cannot even CONCEIVE of a government funded by voluntary means.

@herohair1978: The NHS won`t deny treatment to someone who hasn`t paid? You`re mandated by law to pay to the NHS if you have an income.

That means you`re forced to give up money you`ve earned to pay for someone who hasn`t earned it. Please explain to me how putting a gun to someone`s head and demanding money is ever justified.

By the way: life, liberty and happiness are AMERICAN ideals--to defend your right to these is to defend America and Americans, not Republicans.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@Herohair:

Here`s the problem. Obmam`s national healthcare will NOT end FICA, it will ADD A TAX to my income, and I WILL STILL have to pay for my own insurance.

It all adds up to about 60% of my earnings. drat!
0
Reply
Male 373
Ho jesus, they`re on about the drating healthcare again, throw in atheism/christianity, and we`re having a real drating party
0
Reply
Male 543
quit talking about health care and look at those nuts!
0
Reply
Female 177
This is not funny its mean

drating non-nice individuals
0
Reply
Male 15
"Making your own way and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness in no way include paying for someone`s healthcare."

You wouldn`t happen to be a Republican by any chance?
And I fail to see how paying both FICA as well as health insurance premiums is any better than paying a single NIC, since FICA also includes Medicare contributions. So are you therefore not already paying for someone else`s healthcare as well as your own health insurance? Sucker.
0
Reply
Male 15
"There I shortened it for you because I obviously did not understand the point of your post, which clearly states that both systems are paid for by the wages of workers, but the system I live with is controlled by people who want to make as much money from me as possible. I also appear to believe that the sytem is perfect because it works for me, and I choose to ignore the fact that it doesn`t work for a vast number of people. Still, I choose to fall back on the `You are European` argument to defend my stance because I am unable to find a better one."

There, I expanded it for you.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Making your own way and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness in no way include paying for someone`s healthcare.

We already pay FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act). That should cover it.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
The comments by the americans here in comments that are opposed to universal health care demonstrate a principle that seems to be more and more endemic of their population, which is that you should only look out for yourself, and that they obviously were absent the day in elementary school when the teacher espoused the importance of sharing. Why are so many of you so selfish that you don`t want to help take care of your fellow human? Stop being so concerned about keeping everything that`s yours and try a little compassion and care. All this me, me, me [email protected] is getting old.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"I see a lot of arguments here that state a socialised system of healthcare is wrong because it forces people to pay for others` treatment.
I disagree and I`ll explain why. I`m from Europe."

There I shortened it for you.
0
Reply
Male 15
* Insurance Company-run, and their main concern is getting your money and keeping it.
So if I had to choose between two systems that I had to pay for out of my wages, but with one I was pretty much guaranteed to get shafted as soon as I wasn`t paying attention, I know which I`d go for.

How is it wrong to expect people who can afford it to contribute to a system that is in place to ensure not only others`, but their welfare too?
0
Reply
Male 15
I see a lot of arguments here that state a socialised system of healthcare is wrong because it forces people to pay for others` treatment.
I disagree and I`ll explain why. As someone else here correctly stated, no healthcare is free. In America, it is paid for the most part directly from the salaries of people with healthcare insurance. In the NHS (the system I am familiar with), it is paid for directly from the salaries of people as part of their National Insurance Contribution. Sounds similar, huh? The difference being, in the NHS system, nobody who has contributed to its funding via NIC payments is denied care because "their insurance type doesn`t
cover it" or "That kind of drug you really, really need isn`t availble under you cover."

But as far as I can see, in the US it doesn`t take much for a person to be denied treatment. You see, in the NHS, it is government-run, and the government is answerable to the people. In the US it is Insurance Compa
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@Discobiscuit:

That`s a false statement. Nobody pays over 35%.

The "millionaires and billionaires pay the highest, as does everyone who makes over 379k.

You are a victim to the class warfare rhetoric.
0
Reply
Male 1,831
For those of you who are not Americans:
Your opinion on health care in the USA is irrelevant.
The fact remains that the Federal government does not have the authority to force someone into the free market. The common arguement for Obummer care is an abuse of the interstate commerce clause. The concept they work under for the mandate is that everyone will use the health care system at some point and therefore must carry insurance becuase it affects interstate commerce. Following that same arguement, the US should mandate the entire world`s trade system because every transaction that occurs outside of the US affects the US by keeping revenue out of the government`s coffers. why can`t we regulate Chinese farmers selling food to other Chinese people? We sell food and eat, therefore it affects our commerce and should be regulated, right?

NO

If I choose not to purchase insurance, I have chosen to assume the risk myself.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Keep in mind, there is NOTHING free about socialized medicine. Medicine is valuable, so it must be paid for; if not out of your pocket, then out of someone`s pocket; if the other person won`t give it up voluntarily, socialized medicine demands the government takes it by force. THAT is what I find immoral.[/quote]

The exact same could be said of the fire brigade, police, road maintenance, school system etc etc. This is just a rant against taxation.

Tax is an annoying but necessary part of living in society with other humans. If you want to live only for yourself, never funding another human with the temerity to ask for things like education or health, by all means move to the woods. Build yourself a house, farm your own food, live for yourself and only for yourself.

There`s a reason humans as a species live in communities and help one another. It`s the reason we`ve survived and become the dominant species on the planet.
0
Reply
Male 3,477
"Some balls are held for charity and some for fancy dress..."
0
Reply
Male 13,630
I have this weird wanting on kicking em
0
Reply
Male 2,619

0
Reply
Male 663

0
Reply
Male 6,737
Hah, no health insurance. Another reason why America sucks.
0
Reply
Male 542
@photomstr

My dad currently pays 45%. The high middle class pay their share, the millionaires and billionaires, however..
0
Reply
Male 356
M_Archer, if everyone only lives for itself, humanity would have gone extinct. Humans are sociable and sympathetic creatures; by helping others, we help society, and therefore our species, as a whole.
0
Reply
Female 4,086
without getting into a big discussion on the subject, it is sad that this guy is suffering when a relatively simple outpatient procedure could help him.
0
Reply
Male 19
@M_archer

0
Reply
Male 533
Poor guy :/

Hope he gets better.
0
Reply
Male 766
Well, I pay near 30% in income tax and I know that if the rich paid the same there just might be enough for the army AND medical insurance . . .
0
Reply
Male 3,060

0
Reply
Male 525
Gerry, Last note before I turn it for the night: if self-love/selfishness is disdain and disregard for others, then altruism is disdain and disregard for yourself. I`ll take the former over the latter any day, personally.

I also forgot to mention that I`m not opposed to helping others. I`m opposed to other people forcibly taking wealth from people who earned it and rightfully deserved it; I`m opposed to people making slaves of other people and the slave masters justifying their enslavement with "need".

If it is a sad phase to think man has the right to live for himself and should not be treated as a means to an end, then may I be forever cursed with depression and may no amount of citalopram cure me.
0
Reply
Male 525
From Merriam-Webster: Altruism; behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.

Am I missing something here?

For the record, selfish: "concerned exclusively with oneself" So, by this definition, eating is selfish since eating is concerned with only oneself.

You said they give "meaning, scope and purpose" but you didn`t specify to whom--I assumed you mean some other mystic entity. Upon review, I think you meant "to oneself." Those things you seek from other people are selfish desires--yet you criticized me for being a selfish bastard.

If you look for meaning in your own life through others, you`ve chosen others as your virtues; that`s selfish.

You said I would be a "waste of space"--is a "waste of space" now a person?
0
Reply
Male 525
Madest, I`m beginning to think that you think ad hominems are logically legitimate constructions. I`m going to stop pointing it out, since I think its an unnecessary strain on my keyboard; from now on, I`ll respond to your fallacies with equally ridiculous and fallacious statements. If any of my future patronizing remarks annoys you, you`ll know why.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
M_Archer says safely with his government paid Canadian healthcare.
0
Reply
Male 39,543

M Archer - first, go to the dictionary and look up altruism.

Second, I did not imply altruism. You can certainly live solely for yourself. It`s selfish, but you can. Our obligations to other are not altruistic, they give fullfilment, meaning, and however you define "love" that`s how you get it. But I promise you will not get any definition of `love` through self-love. self-love is not love at all, it`s disdain or disregard for all others.

You can do that if you like. Enjoy it. But you better enjoy being empty and alone also because those things go hand in hand.

As for not being a person....you said it, I didn`t.

I`m sure you`ll hate to hear this part, but one day you`ll grow up and get over this sad phase you are in. You better hope you do anyway.
0
Reply
Male 525
MildCorma, an addendum: You say people fly to India for medicine? Just so you know, my father is a radiologist and knows many of his colleagues who go to America to get surgeries; the wait time for even the most routine procedures is absurd.

Keep in mind, there is NOTHING free about socialized medicine. Medicine is valuable, so it must be paid for; if not out of your pocket, then out of someone`s pocket; if the other person won`t give it up voluntarily, socialized medicine demands the government takes it by force. THAT is what I find immoral.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
Poor guy... but the health system will prevail for life threatning cases. Assuming that this is real
0
Reply
Male 525
I want to see it returned to what the founders intended: lassiez-faire capitalism where every man is an end to himself, where every man is free to make decisions that he sees fit and where the initiation of force is banned from all relationships.
0
Reply
Male 525
@MildCorma: I sympathize and I can`t imagine what it would be like to have your condition.

However, I`ll respond: why should your life be a claim on the lives of other people? You say it`s not fair for you to have to pay for medical bills, but why should OTHER people have to pay for your medical bills? I don`t see how that`s any better.

"Why is other people getting healthcare they need but can`t afford such a bad idea?" you ask. It`s not a bad idea if you drop all context associated with this question like you did. The appropriate context is: healthcare that people get that they can`t afford is forcibly taken from those who earned it; to that`s moral is to say that you can morally hold other people in slavery. THAT`s why it`s a bad idea.

I`m not defending America`s welfare state--I`m defending capitalism. America`s system is flawed because of social security and so many regulations on insurance companies. Because I love America...
0
Reply
Male 7,378
[quote]$10 bucks says this pic was made in a clinic, where he is receiving free healthcare.[/quote]
--------------
I`ll take that $10.00 This pic was taken on the Howard Stern show.
0
Reply
Male 525
@Gerry1of1: In other words: altruism. I reject altruism i.e. the theory that one`s actions are only moral if they benefit other people. There are many qualms I have with this theory. One: it`s a ridiculous double-standard; why is it a virtue to serve others but it`s a vice to serve yourself? Another big reason is simply: why? WHY must I live for the sake of others? WHY must I forfeit my happiness for theirs? WHY is this considered good?

You pointed out another flaw in altruism for me. So, if I`m selfish, that means I`m not a person--I`m a waste of space? So does that mean you or anyone else can dispose of me in any way you see fit? After all, I`m not a person. You say I have no purpose, but just because I`m not an altruist doesn`t mean I have no purpose--I AM my purpose.

That`s fine for you to be an altruist, but why must you force your mystic views on me?
0
Reply
Male 20
"If it is life threatening, he can get it taken care of for free.

$10 bucks says this pic was made in a clinic, where he is receiving free healthcare."

I`m very inclined to agree with you Aurburn.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
If it is life threatening, he can get it taken care of for free.

$10 bucks says this pic was made in a clinic, where he is receiving free healthcare.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
The insured don`t want to step over this guy to get to the hospital. Our current system is exacerbating his problem. The unwillingness to help this guy is a reflection of how screwed up our current system is.
0
Reply
Male 496
*continued*
In Europe we do have medicine that`s run for profit, but alongside a solid healthcare system that caters to everyone that needs it. We pay taxes and get the safety net if we can`t afford private, we get the safety net if we get sacked and end up homeless. We get the healthcare we need when we need it and it costs about 1/6th per person less than your current system, and you`re telling me that -our- system is the one that`s broken?!

Your system is flawed, severely. You pay out of your asses for treatments that cost less to get done if you fly to India, go private, get the op done, recover and fly back. How drated up is that?! You fly to India to get ops done and -save- thousands of dollars. Really America, really. In England it would cost NOTHING if you couldn`t afford an op, or you could pay a bit and go private, up to you but at least the choice is there for you to make.
0
Reply
Male 496
@M Archer

There are other thing to consider though, so you saying people shouldn`t have to pay fro everyone elses healthcare; what about me, being a type 1 diabetic I would have -massive- premiums in the US and it`s not my fault, so why should my life suck more because of it? I should spend all my money on bills because I have the audacity to come down with a condition?

In the UK we have 2 systems: the NHS and private hospitals. The NHS lacks in some comfort areas, like single rooms and TV, that sort of thing. If I have an op it`ll be private because I can afford it, but then people that can`t still get treated at the most basic level. Why is other people getting healthcare they need but can`t afford such a bad idea? It doesn`t have to be A+++++ service, nor does it have to be quick.

In terms of taxes, Americans are taxed more yet still have to pay insurance premiums for healthcare. In the UK we have a system that works, it`s not socialism.
0
Reply
Male 39,543

M Archer: [quote]"I reject the idea that a man must live for the sake of others" [/quote]
Living solely for yourself makes one a selfish bastard.

You are defined by your obligations to others. They give meaning, scope, and purpose. Are you a son? A father? A husband? A firefighter? A teacher?

In all these ways you are defined by the obligations those words place on you. If there is no one in your life you aren`t living for, then you aren`t living. You are existing. Taking up space with no purpose and for no productive end. In short...a waste of space.
0
Reply
Male 550
Is he- . . is he wearing a sweater on his ball!?!?
Well, I guess ya gotta do what ya gotta do
0
Reply
Male 525
The medical industry works like any other business. When the government says that to practice medicine for profit is evil and does what it can to make it harder to earn a profit, don`t be surprised when prices increases.

Don`t fall victim to the statists` appeal to pity fallacy. They`re using the problems government controls have made to create more government controls--I`m appalled to how people fall for this.
0
Reply
Female 205
is he using a hoodie as bottoms?
0
Reply
Male 7,378
No real article on this. He was on the Howard Stern Show this morning. You can listen to the segment here.
0
Reply
Male 525
Socialized medicine also implies that people have a "right" to healthcare i.e. people can morally initiate force on other people into providing healthcare for them.

I reject the idea that a man must live for the sake of others and I also don`t recognize your "right" to my, or any other people`s time and effort.
0
Reply
Male 525
@srximus: Wow, you`ve been living in Europe so long that the government propaganda has convinced you that socialized medicine is the only possible system and you can`t even CONCEIVE of the idea where medicine is run for profit.

@Madest: I hate that argument. For one thing, double-standard much? Why is it that you paint all corporations as corrupt fraudulent businessmen but you regard the government as benevolent overlords? By the same logic, I could say that health insurance companies care about their customers and the government restricts competition to artificially raise prices to make the public think that government-run health care is the only way to go.

Why do you want to screw the CEOs? Is it because they`re rich? Why do you hate success?

National healthcare implies that doctors and insurance companies exist to serve others and have no right to what they produce.
0
Reply
Male 698
Sad
0
Reply
Male 260
I can`t believe this. Link to original story?
0
Reply
Male 10
I`m kind of curious whether its tumor or just an inguinal hernia gone horribly bad... anyone have the original story?
0
Reply
Female 1,623
Oh. My. God.
0
Reply
Male 269
I like big balls and i can not lie!
0
Reply
Female 313
Yes, myrtheus, it`s because all people who don`t pay for health insurance merely don`t want to pay for it because they`re drunks and manchildren. It couldn`t possibly be that they can`t afford to lose the 65 drating dollars a week.
0
Reply
Male 2,516

0
Reply
Male 4,793
@almightybob

Well done, sir!
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah I`d rather deal with government bureaucracy than corporate bureaucracy. Doctors and patients would then have recourse. Insurance companies have manipulated the system in such a way that empathy is frowned upon because there`s no profit in it. National healthcare is a step in the right direction but a public option needs to be implemented. Screw these insurance industry CEOs $50mil a year salaries and their investors.
0
Reply
Male 28
@PsychGeek you say go take a look at the health systems in the Middle East, then come back and tell us how much ours sucks but as a 1st world nation like we are supposed to be we should not have these problems healthcare in america does suck in our country and i should know i have cancer and cant get health insurance because i have to much income a month and i cant get paid healthcare because of a preexisting condition so yes we are better but far from the best when cuba gives its ppl free healthcare and we dont something very wrong there
0
Reply
Male 4,902

0
Reply
Male 4,290
lol Oldfrt I was thinking the same thing.

[quote]go take a look at the health systems in the Middle East, then come back and tell us how much ours sucks[/quote]

Even setting the bar so low by comparing a world superpower to an area containing not one developed country, the WHO still ranked America`s healthcare system below that of Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel when it compiled a ranked list.

Would you like to try another region? Sub-Saharan Africa maybe?
0
Reply
Male 2,790
oh Oldfrt, you beat me to it.
0
Reply
Male 228
Most jobs in the US offer health insurance. You can even work at McDonalds and get health insurance. The problem is not in Health care... the problem is people do not want to pay for it. They see that deduction come out of their check and think they have less monies. Many employees opt out of it, preferring to keep the money and spend it on PlayStations or booze. When they do get sick, they can`t afford the medical bills and since no one can take responsibility for themselves... it must be the governments fault for not providing free health care.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
His name is John. The swollen balls are result of an injury "a couple years ago". He didn`t have insurance so didn`t go to a doctor until it got out of control. His options are the cheap out; castration, or come up with $100k for surgery. He`s going to be in LA tomorrow in hopes of finding a sympathetic doctor.

BTW: He carries that milk crate wherever he goes so he can carry them when walking and it doubles as a stool.

Dude needs help man. That is a hoodie. Rather ingenious.
0
Reply
Male 353
Chuck Norris impersonator fail! (Chuck wouldn`t wear those sunglasses!)
0
Reply
Male 201
@PsychGeek

Your health system SUCK regardless of any other health system in the world. USA is a single superpower, the richest and most developed country in the world. WHY do you have no normal health system then??? Superior systems exist and work in the western world. Just pick one that suits your needs and copy it. You wont turn in to a communist zombie, trust me.
0
Reply
Female 839
dat scrotum
0
Reply
Female 4,039
uggh - it`s like being permanently attached to a hippity-hop.

@Oldfart - you are my new favorite person.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ tedgp:

go take a look at the health systems in the Middle East, then come back and tell us how much ours sucks.

kthanks :)
0
Reply
Male 219
Cystic disease. Rare and treatable...but painful as hell (or so I`ve read).
0
Reply
Male 749


0
Reply
Male 3,285
Yet another example of the failed American Health System
0
Reply
Male 2,552
"Dude has a problem and no health insurance[;] as a result[,] problems [have] [worsened]."

Fixed.
0
Reply
Male 2,551
The only thing I know like that would be elephantiasis, but I wouldn`t like to say for sure.
0
Reply
Male 71
It... It`s like a Hippity Hop!
0
Reply
Male 20,825
Wait, is he wearing a hoodie for pants?
0
Reply
Male 20,825
Ooofa! What in the...? How does he...? Where is the...? Oh my God.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: This Dude Has Big Balls--No, Literally [Pic] [Rate Link] - Dude has a problem and no health insurance; as a result, problem has worsened. They weigh 150lbs. [Clothed, But NSFWy]
0
Reply