First of all if you are talking about the woman from Oregon, she did not have insurance she was using Oregon's medicaid. And they declined to pay for her chemotherapy because she had less than 5% chance of survival over 5 years which is the minimum rate for treatment. The manufacturer of the drug gave it to her for free and she died 6 months later.

But anyway that's largely irrelevant. I can completely understand why people who have terminal illness that would be very painful would want to end their lives with dignity in the manner they choose. It's hard to say unless you are in that situation, but I think I would want to fight to live as long as I possibly could. But by no means do I judge people who would rather not live.

1) Capitalist economies need approximately a 3% unemployment rate to function. So we will always have a decent amount of unemployed people even in the best economic conditions.

2) People who are unemployed for health reasons.

3) The main reason for the recent increase is as you know recession

I think you misheard Oregon as Obama. The program in question is Oregon's medicaid program, not "Obama's" program which does not exist yet. The health care bill does not insist on assisted suicide I really hope you realize that. And it does not offer free health insurance to illegal immigrants: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/

Now referring to the video, the reason that Oregon's medicaid program would not pay for her was that she had a less than 5% survival rate over 5 years. The program has a policy that they will not pay for treatment if there less than 5% survival rate. It seems harsh, but medicaid programs do not have excess cash floating around, and if they always paid for expensive treatments for people who really had no chance of living they could run out of money to pay for treatments which would very likely or almost certainly help people a lot. It's really a choice of the lesser of two evils, but if it's either the program goes bankrupt or people with no chance are not treated, then you can see how they would choose the latter. By the way the manufacturer of the drug gave it to her for free and she died 6 months after being denied by medicaid. I'm not saying I think rationing is a good thing to do. I think everyone in the country deserves access to the best treatment available and if there isn't enough money in the program allocate more and just cut from the military budget. But I want to you see that A) This woman's situation was more complicated than the shallow coverage led you to believe and B) The US health care does not contain any rationing provisions so its a moot point.

I don't understand how you can be against health care reform. As you may have heard we spend a greater percentage of our GDP than any other country 16%. Yet the WHO ranks our quality of health care at 37th in the world among the worst of the developed world. This isn't an issue of left vs. right. This is an issue of the insurance companies vs. citizens. Premiums continue to increase as do insurance companies profits, yet our care gets no people. They make money by denying coverage. They are screwing us all over and laughing all the way to bank. The health care bill will not eliminate private coverage. If you are happy with your care awesome. Adding a public option will simply prevent insurance companies from reaming us quite as hard. If you don't like the conditions of the public option, which are highly exaggerated, then stick with your private insurance. All of this crap misinformation that is being spread about health care reform originates from, big surprise, insurance companies. I read a leaked document that planned out in exquisite detail how to propagandize the public with lies and destroy the debate. You can follow the trail of money with this stuff and see right where it leads to. Please as Americans we need to stop falling into the stupid political theater that works so well for these people profiting of us and open up our eyes. It will benefit everyone except private health insurance companies to have this bill passed. You can get the public option if you don't have insurance and if you have private insurance your premiums will go down through competitive forces.

If you have any questions you want to ask me about stuff you are concerned about that you have been hearing about the health care bill or health care reform in general please do so. I want you and all conservatives on our side where you belong. It pains me to see people, on either side, being used as puppets by people looking out for their own selfish interests.

You have now seen an example of:

Reductio ad absurdum

Like I said there is no way you could afford to pay for all of it, even just the services you want.

It is called a non-profit organization. But I was just explaining why companies use foreign workers.

But some people are also paying for some services that you are using that they are not using. If you drive a car then everyone who doesn't drive a car is paying to make sure your car is safe. We all take care of each other. It's called living in a society. And if you are incapable of accepting that as a justification(sociopathy) then just realize that even if you only paid for services you do want, you would be paying a hell of a lot more than you are paying in taxes right now each year.

One of the reason that government programs exist, if you are only capable of being selfish, is because what is known as an externality. So let's say for example everyone pays for their own private fire departments. Now hypothetically you're rich and you spend a lot of money on the best company there is. But your neighbors don't want to pay all that money. So their houses catch fire which then spreads to yours and it doesn't matter how much you spent. Another example is environmental regulation. We need someone to test air quality and make sure that it is safe. This benefits us all, regardless of whether or not each specific person pays. So everyone decides they won't pay because they want a free ride, so it doesn't get done. Like I said earlier this is not a zero-sum scenario just like iterated prisoners' dilemma so quit trying to beat the other player.

Yeah then Olivia could buy the ice cream in bulk and I pay less for my share than I would have by myself and not only that, but like xaeon said I could also help people get ice cream who didn't have any. Win/win situation.

I love conservatives who assume they would be able to pay for their share of all the services they receive from the government by themselves. Why don't you calculate how much it would cost to have a company inspect all of your food, your cars, your water, keep a standing personal army, fire department, police station, buy your own roads, build your own airports and maintain security and traffic control, regulate and maintain quality of airplanes, send your kids to private school from kindergarten through college, monitor the spread of infectious diseases and respond with vaccinations and treatment so as to protect yourself et cetera. I'm sure I missed a ton of things, but this was what I could think of off the top of my head. The point is I don't think anyone could afford all of the things the government does themselves. The fact is things become cheaper when you purchase them collectively. Taxation and government spending are not a zero-sum situation. That is a participants gain or loss is not equally balanced by the respective loss and gain of another participant.

Please stop making oversimplified immature arguments; they are childish.

The difference between smoking marijuana and driving over the speed limit is that one is terribly dangerous for you and for other people and the other isn't at all.

Because in a capitalist economy companies will always try to maximize their profits. And overseas labor is often much cheaper than domestic labor, so naturally companies will go with what costs them less. Business don't care about people who are unemployed as long as they are happy with their bottom line. The very nature of the system is such that if whoever was running the company started being compassionate at the expense of the company, the shareholders would replace him. And if the shareholders were okay with it the company could quite possibly be at such a disadvantage it would eventually go bankrupt.