I don't see the difference between this issue and any other issue that involves government funding. There are limits on how much we can spend on things. There are limits on how much we can spend on Medicare, or Medicaid, or responding to overdosing addicts. There are unavoidable financial limits. That's the point. The person who proposed this wasn't doing it to punish addicts. He made this proposal in order to keep the local government from going bankrupt.

Socialism is an attempt to save everyone, no matter what. A realist recognizes limits on resources, and the fact that by attempting to save everyone, eventually, we will not be able to save anyone.

Look at the Republican health care proposal. One of the main planks is a limit on the growth of Medicaid. And there is no doubt that some people will die if we cut off their Medicaid. But on the other hand, if we don't put a limit on the growth of Medicaid, eventually the government will be bankrupt and no one will get Medicaid at all. The program will cease to exist. There have to be limits. And that's the point of the proposal to limit the number of responses to drug overdoses that the local government has to pay for. It's a matter of survival for the local government finances. They have to put a limit.

---

I don't see the difference between this issue and any other issue that involves government funding.  There are limits on how much we can spend on things.  There are limits on how much we can spend on Medicare, or Medicaid, or responding to overdosing addicts.   There are unavoidable financial limits.  That's the point.   The person who proposed this wasn't doing it to punish addicts.  He made this proposal in order to keep the local government from going bankrupt.

Socialism is an attempt to save everyone, no matter what.  A realist recognizes limits on resources, and the fact that by attempting to save everyone, eventually, we will not be able to save anyone.

Look at the Republican health care proposal.  One of the main planks is a limit on the growth of Medicaid.  And there is no doubt that some people will die if we cut off their Medicaid.  But on the other hand, if we don't put a limit on the growth of Medicaid, eventually the government will be bankrupt and no one will get Medicaid at all.  The program will cease to exist.  There have to be limits.  And that's the point of the proposal to limit the number of responses to drug overdoses that the local government has to pay for.  It's a matter of survival for the local government finances.  They have to put a limit.

Is it safe to assume that countries which practice socialized medicine subscribe to the same reasoning?

---

Saw something on the news that 50% of people with children are on medicaid.  Which I will say if you are on medicaid you probably shouldn't be having children.

How dare you insinuate that individuals should be responsible for the consequences of their decisions! Its up to the productive and responsible to pay for those people's judgement lapses.

You may or may not be joking, but you have touched on an inevitable question, and that is, should I be forced to pay for other people's poor choices.  Should I be forced to save you from your drug addiction, or your lung cancer, or your diabetes, when those maladies were caused by your own lifestyle choices.

---

I don't see the difference between this issue and any other issue that involves government funding.  There are limits on how much we can spend on things.  There are limits on how much we can spend on Medicare, or Medicaid, or responding to overdosing addicts.   There are unavoidable financial limits.  That's the point.   The person who proposed this wasn't doing it to punish addicts.  He made this proposal in order to keep the local government from going bankrupt.

Socialism is an attempt to save everyone, no matter what.  A realist recognizes limits on resources, and the fact that by attempting to save everyone, eventually, we will not be able to save anyone.

Look at the Republican health care proposal.  One of the main planks is a limit on the growth of Medicaid.  And there is no doubt that some people will die if we cut off their Medicaid.  But on the other hand, if we don't put a limit on the growth of Medicaid, eventually the government will be bankrupt and no one will get Medicaid at all.  The program will cease to exist.  There have to be limits.  And that's the point of the proposal to limit the number of responses to drug overdoses that the local government has to pay for.  It's a matter of survival for the local government finances.  They have to put a limit.

Is it safe to assume that countries which practice socialized medicine subscribe to the same reasoning?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I will say this- I have traveled to a lot of other first-world countries in Europe and Asia, and I can't help but notice all the really nice stuff they have- public transportation that is clean and runs on time, beautiful parks and gardens, roads and bridges they can be proud of, and I cannot help but wonder why they can afford these things and we apparently cannot.

The only reason I can think of is that we have this giant defense budget and they have decided they don't need to spend so much money on defense because we will always come to their rescue if they need it. On this subject I agree with Trump- these countries have to raise their defense spending so we don't bankrupt ourselves defending them.

To me, the big issue isn't so much what we want to spend our money on, but rather, how much we spend. It's like I'm sitting on the sidelines saying, look, all you guys can argue about this program or that program. What I care about is fitting it all into a sustainable budget. To maybe overdramatize a little, I would say, I don't care about socialized medicine, or how many F-35s we buy, I care about the survival of the country, and that means avoiding federal bankruptcy. So make your choices, but limit your total spending to a certain amount that is sustainable for the long term.

There have to be limits. We cannot continue to borrow and spend, or else we won't have a country.

---

I live in Huntington, WV (basically ground zero for the heroin crisis). A quarter of the people who live in the county are on heroin. No exaggeration, you can look it up. The heroin zombies are nodding off behind the wheel and running into people left and right. An elderly fella was ran off of a bridge after a couple OD'd behind the wheel. He died from his injuries later.  I get sick of seeing these people get narcan and go right back to what they were up to before.

My wife is a cardiac nurse. The majority of her patients used to be elderly folks. Now, they are primarily IV drug users who have burned up a heart valve. Medicaid pays for them to get valve replacements so they get a new valve to burn up on our dime. Between narcan and medicaid, they have zero consequences for their actions.

So the part of me that is sick of dealing with these pieces of garbage says that three strikes sounds good. However, no medical professional is allowed to let some heroin junkie die.

I understand your frustration and feeling regarding the "three strikes" law, but at the same time I personally couldn't just let someone die because of a psychological/physiological disease.  It goes back to actually helping these people overcome the need to put dangerous chemicals into their bodies.  Yes I know, alcohol and nicotine are also dangerous chemicals that people put into their bodies (including myself) but it's not the same thing.

Allowing someone to die without helping them or attempting to help them is just not the moral or right thing to do.

And this is where the ball is dropped and it's sad. Ten years ago I was hospitalized twice (in two different psych hospitals no less) due to attempted suicide and having suicidal ideations and neither place was super supportive of getting me well. The second one was better than the first but both were seriously lacking. They basically change up all your meds, which may or may not have contributed to why you were there, you see the doctor once every couple of days and sit in group therapy or watch TV. There is no actual sessions one on one with the shrink, no getting family involved with treatment even if all parties are willing to go that route.

Nothing. 

It was changing meds, make sure your insurance was current and when that 30 days of coverage was up, if you didn't have the cash to pay daily they put you out. And insurance didn't cover more than 30 days per year so if you were in trouble again and couldn't pay, sucks to be you. Thankfully I was not there that long consecutively so it wasn't an issue, but these are the things that go on whether it's mental illness or addiction. It pisses me off to no end because people need real help. People who can become productive members of society such as myself and your son.

---

How dare you insinuate that individuals should be responsible for the consequences of their decisions! Its up to the productive and responsible to pay for those people's judgement lapses.

You may or may not be joking, but you have touched on an inevitable question, and that is, should I be forced to pay for other people's poor choices.  Should I be forced to save you from your drug addiction, or your lung cancer, or your diabetes, when those maladies were caused by your own lifestyle choices.

Um, type-1 diabetes is not a lifestyle choice. So you must be talking about type-2. And people do get lung cancer who have never smoked a day in their life. Drug addiction often starts quite innocently. Percocet after a major surgery turns into something quite different down the line for some. Things are not always what they seem, that's all I'm saying.

---

---

You may or may not be joking, but you have touched on an inevitable question, and that is, should I be forced to pay for other people's poor choices.  Should I be forced to save you from your drug addiction, or your lung cancer, or your diabetes, when those maladies were caused by your own lifestyle choices.

Um, type-1 diabetes is not a lifestyle choice. So you must be talking about type-2. And people do get lung cancer who have never smoked a day in their life. Drug addiction often starts quite innocently. Percocet after a major surgery turns into something quite different down the line for some. Things are not always what they seem, that's all I'm saying.

I agree with you, but dealing with preventable diseases are the number 1 cause of waste in our healthcare system. We are the best ever at keeping alive people who are intent on killing themselves by their lifestyle choices, and that's a huge cost to the whole system.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

---

Um, type-1 diabetes is not a lifestyle choice. So you must be talking about type-2. And people do get lung cancer who have never smoked a day in their life. Drug addiction often starts quite innocently. Percocet after a major surgery turns into something quite different down the line for some. Things are not always what they seem, that's all I'm saying.

I agree with you, but dealing with preventable diseases are the number 1 cause of waste in our healthcare system. We are the best ever at keeping alive people who are intent on killing themselves by their lifestyle choices, and that's a huge cost to the whole system.

So who gets to decide what lifestyle choice is unacceptable?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I agree with you, but dealing with preventable diseases are the number 1 cause of waste in our healthcare system. We are the best ever at keeping alive people who are intent on killing themselves by their lifestyle choices, and that's a huge cost to the whole system.

So who gets to decide what lifestyle choice is unacceptable?

Do whatever you want, just dont try to foister the consequences off on the rest of us.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So who gets to decide what lifestyle choice is unacceptable?

Do whatever you want, just dont try to foister the consequences off on the rest of us.

I agree with that. If the government did not help anyone with a medical/addiction problem, then lifestyle would not be under discussion.

But government help for those of an approved lifestyle is implicit in your statement. If government uses it's power to help person A but not person B because some "expert" finds that person B's lifestyle is unacceptable then you are agreeing that an "expert" can make that decision.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"