Topic: Random Rants/Health Care (Read 34091 times)

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #125 on:** September 22, 2009, 10:24:57 AM »

Quote from: xolik on September 21, 2009, 01:05:03 PM

Went the way of the dodo.

more like the way of the buffalo...purposefully hunted to extinction.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #126 on:** September 22, 2009, 11:36:56 AM »

Quote from: Clear_Runway on September 22, 2009, 10:24:57 AM

more like the way of the buffalo...purposefully hunted to extinction.

Isn't that what happened to the Dodo?

Clear_Runway · « **Reply #127 on:** September 22, 2009, 03:34:34 PM »

the dodo was hunted to extinction because it was too stupid to run away from an armed man, so naturally it was easy to kill for food

the buffalo was hunted to extinction to hurt the Indians and make it harder for them to fight us.

xolik · « **Reply #128 on:** September 22, 2009, 04:26:27 PM »

Quote from: Clear_Runway on September 22, 2009, 03:34:34 PM

the dodo was hunted to extinction because it was too stupid to run away from an armed man, so naturally it was easy to kill

Oh, you mean like Native Ameri...

Quote from: Clear_Runway on September 22, 2009, 03:34:34 PM

the buffalo was hunted to extinction to hurt the Indians and make it harder for them to fight us.

.....crap. But where do the plague blankets come into this scenario?

LuciferSam · « **Reply #129 on:** October 19, 2009, 11:12:37 PM »

Only the top 2% of income earners in the US can afford luxury brands like Plague© Blankets, you elitist.

BizB · « **Reply #130 on:** November 09, 2009, 09:40:47 AM »

Watch the talking heads (Angry White Man Radio) march in lockstep on the just passed health care (insurance) bill. Topic: Is it constitutional to force citizens to purchase something (insurance) and impose fines/imprisonment if the fail to do so?

I heard it last night.
I heard it on a local show this morning.
The moron taking Glenn Beck's place this morning jumped right on it.

Perhaps with a united front, they can actually defeat it. Perhaps they will just be dismissed like they were on the McCain Finegold campaign finance reform bill.

reimero · « **Reply #131 on:** November 09, 2009, 11:49:27 AM »

I have very serious doubts that it will get past the Senate in its current form.

Also: Pelosi painted herself into a corner by guaranteeing passage of some sort of health care bill.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #132 on:** November 09, 2009, 01:21:07 PM »

Quote from: BizB on November 09, 2009, 09:40:47 AM

Watch the talking heads (Angry White Man Radio) march in lockstep on the just passed health care (insurance) bill. Topic: Is it constitutional to force citizens to purchase something (insurance) and impose fines/imprisonment if the fail to do so?

Sure. The way it works in the bill, it's not "purchasing" anything. It's effectively just a tax.

Of course, they're not calling it that when they talk about it. Calling it a tax when talking about it in front of regular people would raise even more outcry against it than there already is.

And really, there should be. It's effectively a brand, spanking new $1.2 Trillion tax on citizens and businesses in this country. When one is talking about that kind of money, you'd better call it what it is.

ivan · « **Reply #133 on:** November 09, 2009, 02:11:17 PM »

If it passes the Senate, I will be astounded.

xolik · « **Reply #134 on:** November 09, 2009, 07:30:40 PM »

Quote from: ivan on November 09, 2009, 02:11:17 PM

If it passes the Senate, I will be astounded.

It won't.

At least, I hope not.

Because I think poor people shouldn't have health care. I mean, that's the only reason somebody would be opposed to this, right?

BizB · « **Reply #135 on:** November 09, 2009, 07:40:00 PM »

Either that, or they hate wetbacks.

* BizB was married to a Mexican, so he can say that word.

Probie · « **Reply #136 on:** November 10, 2009, 04:05:40 AM »

Quote from: xolik on November 09, 2009, 07:30:40 PM

It won't.

At least, I hope not.

Because I think poor people shouldn't have health care. I mean, that's the only reason somebody would be opposed to this, right?

That's how it looks from where I'm standing. This topic makes me feel so uncomfortable.

Edit: I'm not being fair, but I can't see a reason against it that is as strong as the reason for it. Saving lives.

xolik · « **Reply #137 on:** November 10, 2009, 11:07:50 AM »

Quote from: Probie on November 10, 2009, 04:05:40 AM

That's how it looks from where I'm standing. This topic makes me feel so uncomfortable.

Edit: I'm not being fair, but I can't see a reason against it that is as strong as the reason for it. Saving lives.

The blanket "Saving Lives" statement can be used to justify just about any government take over for just about every aspect of your daily life. It's extreme, but it's true. The government has decided they're going to pass a law that renders all food items on this list *1200 page list appears out of the blue* illegal in order to save lives.

What, you don't want to save lives? Fascist.

"Saving Lives", "Think of the children" and "For the greater good" are wonderful phrases people in government like to use as any excuse to keep chipping away at your individual freedom. A little bit here, a little bit there, then what?

Probie · « **Reply #138 on:** November 10, 2009, 11:31:23 AM »

But giving health care to people who can't afford it is a good idea. I thought you where 'pro-life'? Or is that only when it comes to fetus'?

Also, it's not really hampering your freedom when you can still get health insurance if you want. It's just trying to provide for the people who are paid a lot less, who can't work or who can't afford insurance.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #139 on:** November 10, 2009, 11:43:37 AM »

Why should the gov plunder my paycheck in order to pay for some lazy slob's doctor's visits?
Start a charity and let me contribute to it what I feel is appropriate and affordable.

Probie · « **Reply #140 on:** November 10, 2009, 11:49:06 AM »

The problem is most of them are not lazy slob's joe, a lot of them will be the hard working class. People who work long hours for shit pay and don't get health insurance as a benefit. What about those people?

Also what about those cases where the insurance company pays out so much and then goes hey, you got leukemia...tough luck we've paid out the maximum. Shucks sorry guys!

xolik · « **Reply #141 on:** November 10, 2009, 12:02:51 PM »

Quote from: Probie on November 10, 2009, 11:31:23 AM

But giving health care to people who can't afford it is a good idea. I thought you where 'pro-life'? Or is that only when it comes to fetus'?

Also, it's not really hampering your freedom when you can still get health insurance if you want. It's just trying to provide for the people who are paid a lot less, who can't work or who can't afford insurance.

Where did you get the idea that I'm pro-life? I'm decidedly pro-choice. It's a matter of personal freedom. You have the freedom to chose what you do with your unborn and I'm not going to encourage somebody one way or the other on that issue. Or did you just decide that since I don't seem to agree with you on this, then I'm some sort of rabid pro-lifer?

It is hampering your freedom when the government mandates that either you have insurance or they'll tax you extra (penalize you) if you don't. How is the government penalizing the very people who can't get insurance helping them? What the govt is trying to do is not going to be free for everybody who wants it. That's not what's going on right now. They're going to offer or at least try to offer some type of laughable 'competition' with the current providers and if you don't go for either the stuff the private companies offer or the low grade DMV quality crap the govt is trying to foist on you, they're gonna penalize you.

The health care system in the country can be fixed bits and pieces at a time. The whole 'oh shit we've got a dem majority no time to read the bill just pass it now now now' bullshit is going to do much more harm than good. Tossing the current system in the shitcan in favour some some massive European style form of care isn't what's needed. When that fails, what do we have to fall back on? Nothing. The old system was removed entirely. If you make the changes bits at a time, when a change fails or has an undesired effect, it can be rolled back easily.

Does that kind of help you figure out where I am on this? People need access to good quality, affordable care. But we are going about bringing that to people the wrong way.

Probie · « **Reply #142 on:** November 10, 2009, 12:23:10 PM »

Whoops, I thought the response was from someone different.

But they aren't removing the old system, because the insurance companies will still be there wont they? They are attaching this new part along side it. So then can't is be rolled back? Also, doesn't everybody have to pay the tax to provide the health service? Isn't that what joe is saying? He doesnt want to pay for other peoples health care? It was my understanding that everyone paid the tax but only the need in need used the service not just another pay in system?

BizB · « **Reply #143 on:** November 10, 2009, 01:06:56 PM »

Quote from: Probie on November 10, 2009, 12:23:10 PM

Whoops, I thought the response was from someone different.

But they aren't removing the old system, because the insurance companies will still be there wont they? They are attaching this new part along side it. So then can't is be rolled back? Also, doesn't everybody have to pay the tax to provide the health service? Isn't that what joe is saying? He doesnt want to pay for other peoples health care? It was my understanding that everyone paid the tax but only the need in need used the service not just another pay in system?

Sure. The existing system is still out there... for now and for a little while. But, how is your existing insurance company supposed to compete with an entity that, not only doesn't have to make a profit to satisfy stakeholders, but has printing presses that can print as much money as needed to cover their costs?

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #144 on:** November 10, 2009, 02:05:39 PM »

Quote from: Probie on November 10, 2009, 11:49:06 AM

The problem is most of them are not lazy slob's joe, a lot of them will be the hard working class. People who work long hours for shit pay and don't get health insurance as a benefit. What about those people?

Also what about those cases where the insurance company pays out so much and then goes hey, you got leukemia...tough luck we've paid out the maximum. Shucks sorry guys!

There's lots of things I want that I can't afford. I don't see why someone else's shitty job, lack of motivation, or any other shitty trait means I should be penalized.

*I am playing devil's advocate, but only a little bit.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #145 on:** November 10, 2009, 02:06:59 PM »

Here is an interesting article about what happens when the 'good intentioned' government helps 'poor' people. Clack here. I'm sure some in congress really believe they are doing some good. But what do a bunch of legally trained people (most have law degrees) know about economics, psychology, etc. Some of the poorest, will probably benefit, a great majority will have even less incentive to work because the various government entities will take $1.20 for each incremental $1 they earn. And the filthy rich will stay filthy but healthy and will probably probably get even more benefits since they are the ones who buy the politicians.

ivan · « **Reply #146 on:** November 10, 2009, 02:11:48 PM »

Probie, some Americans believe that it is society's responsibility to ensure that no citizen goes hungry, shelterless or without healthcare.

And some don't.

But don't be disquieted by those that don't -- they are not necessarily callous. It is a philosophical point of view about how economies work, not a moral code.

I've seen apparently Scrooge-like libertarian types perform acts of selflessness and compassion.

I've seen self-righteous socialist types walk by beggars, muttering with eyes averted "someone ought to do something about them".

Americans are just weird, that's all.

BizB · « **Reply #147 on:** November 10, 2009, 02:41:19 PM »

There is absolutely no inconsistency in the dichotomy you've presented. In fact, they are EXACTLY as I would expect them to be. You see, the libertarian/voluntarist would say that it is the incumbent upon the individual to take action to help another and therefore, it is likely that you would see a person with such beliefs take action. In the case of the socialist, they believe that it is incumbent upon The State to take action to help those down on their luck. As such, they feel perfectly comfortable walking past the beggar and doing nothing.

ivan · « **Reply #148 on:** November 10, 2009, 03:24:18 PM »

Quote from: BizB on November 10, 2009, 02:41:19 PM

There is absolutely no inconsistency in the dichotomy you've presented. In fact, they are EXACTLY as I would expect them to be. You see, the libertarian/voluntarist would say that it is the incumbent upon the individual to take action to help another and therefore, it is likely that you would see a person with such beliefs take action. In the case of the socialist, they believe that it is incumbent upon The State to take action to help those down on their luck. As such, they feel perfectly comfortable walking past the beggar and doing nothing.

That's what I was getting at.

But then, there are also a bunch of libertarian types who would rather watch you rot than pay another penny to the feds, and there are socialists who are saints.

Basically, your take on how our economy should be structured should not be seen as an indicator of what kind of person you are.

xolik · « **Reply #149 on:** November 10, 2009, 05:04:45 PM »

Quote from: ivan on November 10, 2009, 03:24:18 PM

Basically, your take on how our economy should be structured should not be seen as an indicator of what kind of person you are.

Exactly. Just because I don't think what my government is trying to do regarding health care is the best solution out there doesn't mean I must hate poor people and want them all to suffer miserable rotting deaths while I sit in the back of my limo, sipping champagne out of the ass crack of a 18 year old Philippino rentboy. Give me some credit.

He'd have to at least be 21.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Random Rants/Health Care (Read 34091 times)