The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Min on July 15, 2009, 06:17:01 PM
-
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3752/picture008igu.jpg) (http://img526.imageshack.us/i/picture008igu.jpg/)
Ok, America, get your act together. You're getting way too fat. Is this what we've really become as a nation? I'm all for freedom of choice and being able to eat what you want, but COME ON. At least make some kind of effort to balance your diet out. What the hell is wrong with our country? Gah, it irritates me to no end.
Now imagine having to pay for her health care. :x I don't fucking want to!!
-
Now imagine having to pay for her health care. :x I don't fucking want to!!
THAT.
-
You're too young to pay taxes, aren't you?
-
Well, maybe when you pay your own taxes, you'll become outraged that no matter how healthy you eat (even though you don't want to) and how much you exercise and use good judgement (even though it's so much less fun), you'll still have to pay for the cirrhosis of the guy that drinks too much, the lung cancer of the guy who smokes 2 packs a day and the heart diesease of the chick on the scooter who buys all her meals from fast food places.
Or maybe you won't. I don't know.
-
Yeh socialism.
But seriously that is why you call it a society and a healthcare system, and yes then you pay for people who don't take care of themselves.
If you choose a system where you don't pay for others and only for yourselve(s) you are fucked when you(who does take care of herself) gets unlucky and gets diagnosed with something serious. Because that is unaffordable.
A healthcare system works because of the fact that everybody pays and still the major part of those people only get a flew shot.
I do share your irritation Detta but unfortunately that is the way it works.
-
That's what we in the fast food industry refer to as a "fucking fat bastard", or "ffb" for short.
-
Weird, they pay your salary :lol:
And a good part of it as showed.....
-
Doesn't bananaskittles live in Canada?
In that case would it matter if she was old enough to pay taxes? I believe they don't pay for healthcare up there. Their healthcare is shitty of course, but they don't pay for it.
-
Unless I'm mistaken, the government runs their healthcare, and so their taxes pay for it.
And you're right, it's shitty. Canadians cross the border to get cared for here. And that's the system that they want to bring here. That's my problem.
Jeee, I don't have a problem with health insurance. I have a problem with government run health care. We bitch about the post office and the schools that are run by the government and now we want to put our health in their hands?
-
I challenge anyone who is in favour of Obamacare to name one thing that the government does better than the private sector.
-
I challenge anyone who is in favour of Obamacare to name one thing that the government does better than the private sector.
Fuck things up for everybody.
No, I'm not in favour of it; just pointing out the obvious.
-
Healthcare is not healthcare when you have to wait on long lists because the government rations the care. Or when they deem a procedure unnecessary even though you have good money and want to pay for it.
-
Or when they deem a procedure unnecessary
Especially when "they" aren't physicians or in any way qualified to make such a decision about someone else's health and whether or not a treatment is "available".
-
Let's be very specific about terms here.
Healthcare = the service provided by physicians
Health Insurance = a means of paying for healthcare
There's currently NOTHING wrong with the healthcare in these United States. The health insurance system, however, is completely screwed up. Health insurance should not cover standard office visits. It should not cover annual exams. What is should cover is those UNEXPECTED health care costs that one could not reasonably anticipate.
I think the first things that we could do to improve the current costs associated with health care are as follows:
1) Increase the number of physician licenses available
2) Allow LPNs to actually practice
C) I don't always use numbered lists
4) Stop letting the health care providers file the insurance paperwork/claims. Require the patient to do it. Then, they'll actually see what the costs are.
5) Stop the automatic payroll withholding for health insurance. Instead, if an employer wants to provide the additional benefit of a health insurance nature, let them provide a stipend that can only be applied to the cost of health insurance.
There's currently no competition in the healthcare industry. I go to my doctor because he's a provider that is part of my health insurance company's network. Not because he's reasonably priced. Not because he's especially good at what he does - though, I'm satisfied with the care he has provided so far. I couldn't tell you if a standard office visit costs are high or low compared to other physicians. I would never dream of calling around to find out where I could get the same level of care at a more reasonable price because no matter where I go, an office visit costs me $20. That's part of the problem.
-
Healthcare is healthcare, and I don't know what you mean by shitty but I've never had a problem with it.
When you get older you may have a change of heart about that.
Healthcare is not healthcare when you have to wait on long lists because the government rations the care. Or when they deem a procedure unnecessary even though you have good money and want to pay for it.
Especially when "they" aren't physicians or in any way qualified to make such a decision about someone else's health and whether or not a treatment is "available".
What they said.
EDIT: BizB pays $20 for an office visit? Where the hell can I get that insurance?
-
My age has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Actually, it does.
1. If you aren’t working to support yourself while having taxes taken out (I believe you still live at home, right? And just now got a job?) to pay for everyone else’s healthcare; yet at the same time you have your nifty card, then yes. One can say your age has everything to do with the topic at hand since you are using the healthcare system and stating and thinking that it is “free” – a common misconception made by poorer folks and younger people, basically because the aren’t the ones funding it, but most often the ones using it. Thus it seems ‘free” to them.
2. Simply by virtue of your age, you don’t have the “equity” (for lack of a better term) in the healthcare system – you haven’t paid into it for 30-something years via taxes. That hardly equates you with someone who has been funding your “free” card most of their lives. I’m not saying you don’t have the same rights, etc; simply that when you state your point of view, you shouldn’t expect those of us “old farts” to believe that you’ve studied the system and know how to play it successfully when you only recently started working (and paying taxes).
this subject, which you clearly have no understanding about, since you don't live in said country.
Again, your age could be called as witness here; as most older folk who have “been around” awhile know that you don’t actually have to live somewhere to know about things there.
Again you are misinformed, however since the only news channel you get is Fox, I'll fill you in on how it works, being a resident of a system where free health care is in place.
<snip>
instead of getting it for free where they live in 20 minutes or less.
It seems you are woefully misinformed. First, as the “old farts” here will attest to; we have many many many many many news channels here. Also, Canada now has Fox, as well, so you can hush using it as some lame insult. Second, you failed in your attempt to fill us in on how it all works. Yep. You left out the ENTIRE PART about how it gets PAID FOR. You know; the crappy part all the “old farts” bitch about all the time. You said “it’s free”. Is that what you truly believe? Its just “free”?
-
You are misinformed. I've been paying into it since I can remember, like you, we have taxes "on the dollar" 13 cents is added to what we buy thus increasing the cost (GST and PST) so a 1 dollar item, is really $1.13. That extra 13 cents (or a portion of it) goes into the health care system, its not some bill that comes in the mail once a year, it's an ever growing fund.
I thought you just started working? Where did you previously get the money to spend? Parents? Then it was not “YOU” paying a damn thing. When you’ve made your decision between the power bill or some Ramen noodles; get back to me.
Until then, you obviously have no clue what “paying for” something really means.
knowledge and wisdom are two very different things.
And neither come with youth.
-
In bananaskittles defense, I do believe Canada's healthcare is very good, in fact it is superior to that of the United States, which is "below the OECD median". On a side note, let's not judge people based on their age? I've seen quite a few "old farts" that are so incredibly misinformed, it is almost a crime. I've also met youngsters far wiser than their age would let you believe. It depends on the person, age is a factor, but not the whole picture.
Please read these URLs:
- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)
As for the health insurance, apparently Canada's system is working quite well. Personally I believe the system you guys have in the US is better from an ideology point of view. My country is sort of stuck in the middle: you are required to purchase a health insurance at a Dutch (private) insurance company. The government enforces a basic health package (coverage) and the insurance companies cannot reject anyone who applies for it. They can for anything beyond the basic plan, but currently these companies are not as cut-throat about it as they are in America. This will undoubtedly change though. I am not sure if the government 'owns' hospitals and such, but at the very least they are subsidized (as in: paid by tax payers). No competition. Apparently, according to international standards we are doing quite well. My personal view however, based on personal experience as well, is that the whole system is still terribly bureaucratic and an incredible money wasting machine, clearly as a result from "the way things were done" in the past (think Canada). As a result things are not running very efficiently (long waiting lists for many things, relatively long waiting lists for pretty much everything else), competition between hospitals is non-existent and the costs of health insurance has gone up almost exponentially in a matter of years. That part of capitalism in healthcare has definitely succeeded!
I wholeheartedly agree with BizB, who wrote "Health insurance should not cover standard office visits. It should not cover annual exams. What is should cover is those UNEXPECTED health care costs that one could not reasonably anticipate." This is exactly what I deem wrong with our system as well. An insurance should not cover costs that are expected and reasonable enough to afford. I only need insurance for when I get run over by a truck and every bone in my body has been broken (or something to that effect). Or for people who have diabetes and other chronically ill people, which is very expensive. Why call it an insurance otherwise? I have a car insurance, but that doesn't cover yearly check-ups or in fact, gas. And minor damage you really should pay for yourself (or face a fee increase). I pay for it to prevent a catastrophic event from financially ruining me. The same ought to be true for health insurance.
As it stands I pay about 100 euros every month for absolutely nothing (and it rises at an alarming rate each year, 10-15%, with coverage declining and increasing deductables). I would much prefer that everyone paid a certain amount of their yearly medical bills themselves, whatever the reason (say up to a $1000 a year). This would force everyone to be more conscious of what they are doing, enforcing personal responsibility (something especially the Dutch have lost sight of with a maddening array of rules for everything). Many people here go see the doctor for every little thing, and at the same time those doctors play the system by forcing you to come for re-fills of medicine that are not a hazard to your health and do not need those regular check-ups. Should in fact not be regulated at all (and aren't in America). A seriously reduced monthly fee would leave enough financial space to cover those costs (as in: your own responsbility) and contribute to a system that is much more fair from an idealogy point of view. It is seen as unfair in probably most of Europe. Afterall, you didn't ask to be chronically ill and most medical costs cannot be avoided? That is true (did I ask for my car to be totalled though?). But we're not talking about all or nothing here, there is a limit to how much you as the unfortunate one are supposted to shell out. Life simply isn't fair, it's the same with income and that is generally accepted (don't get me started on "pay more taxes as you earn more" though). Time and again it has been proven that without an incentive, the whole system (any system) breaks down into a bureaucratic mess that is more expensive and of lesser quality than it would have been with competition and inequality. We really ough to fix this. A real health insurance system would still pay for the unfortunate soul who needs a liver transplant or something, just as it did before.
I am not against some government interference: people ought to be helped and it is not right that certain procedures that need to be done are not done because those unfortunate souls cannot afford them, or the insurance is only willing to pay for an abyssmal substitute procedure (which is what happens in America). If laws can prevent unscrupulous companies from trying to weasle out of paying for people who have a legitimate claim on (and need for) health insurance, then that is fine by me. But I hate having to pay for all this bureaucratic fluf and I hate that people actively try to 'recoup' some of the money by playing the system. We've all heard the stories about old folks going to see the doctor, mostly to have someone to talk to... I shouldn't have to pay for that.
Unfortunately... no one seems to care much for my opinion and I will be shelling out well over EUR 100 from next year on. Somehow I think the government will manage to introduce a new "environmental" tax on that as well to add to my misery ;)
(Next up: why am I paying for private day care and other children-related costs through taxes? It doesn't apply to me and I didn't get to have a say in who gets to have children and how many... so why should I pay for them through taxes?)
-
:clapping:
-
Health insurance in the US is extremely convoluted (yes, I'm that guy who actually reads the statements). I pay a $10 copay for regular visits and $25 for specialist visits. Some procedures require a percentage payment which goes toward my deductible.
Here's the bizarre part.
procedure A
-doctor's list price $1000
-insurance pays to doctor $100
-I pay $10 copay
If I didn't have insurance I'd be paying $1000. But I pay $10. The doctor makes $110. In a world without insurance the amount of the procedure would probably vary from $60-$300 depending on how good the doctor was. What happens is the doctors keep inflating their prices because the insurance companies try to chisel it down. So in negotiations the doctor next year will say the cost is going up, the service will now be $1200. The insurance company will say well we can go maybe $105. Then they'll get the doctor to sign a letter of agreement. If the doctor doesn't sign the agreement, the insurance takes the doctor off the list and will only cover 70% of the cost for the patient. The insurance company would then pay $840. The patient would pay $360 because it's an out of system provider. Then shudder to think of the poor sap without insurance, he's paying $1200 for the procedure or will ignore it, then end up costing the federal government $1,000,000 when he's amulanced to the emergency room for something that would have been easily fixed for $60-$300. And the patient, while still alive will then have to file bankruptcy and lose all his assets to pay off the $1,000,000 in medical costs.
-
On a side note, let's not judge people based on their age? I've seen quite a few "old farts" that are so incredibly misinformed, it is almost a crime. I've also met youngsters far wiser than their age would let you believe. It depends on the person, age is a factor, but not the whole picture.
No one judged anyone by age. As for myself; I "judged" by statements made. If I do NOT take age into account; then certain statements make one appear grossly ignorant. If I DO consider age; certain statements are understandable as "life experience" is somewhat limited. This is simply a fact; not an 'insult" or an attack or judgement. I perhaps was somewhat harsh and condescending; I tend to get that way when I feel insulted myself.
Right, BizB? :w:
Also, I had no reason to reply anyway until I was quoted and told since I didn't live there; I didn't know anything about the subject; and since we only got FoxNews, I would be filled in on how it works.Then; that particular explanation left out everything about how the whole system gets funded.
-
Our healthcare pretty much rules and the fact that I'm essentially paying for other people's poor lifestyle choices means that I have an excellent justification for making fun of fat people.
8-)
-
It's not like weight issues are the only self inflicted health problems in the world. What about people smoking and drinking themselves to death?
-
We like making fun of them too.
-
Then shudder to think of the poor sap without insurance, he's paying $1200 for the procedure or will ignore it, then end up costing the federal government $1,000,000 when he's amulanced to the emergency room for something that would have been easily fixed for $60-$300. And the patient, while still alive will then have to file bankruptcy and lose all his assets to pay off the $1,000,000 in medical costs.
This is pretty much what happened to me last summer, only I did have insurance. After the surgery was done and the bills started to come, the insurance company said "HAHAHA!! NO!!" I went back and forth for 6 months with them and the hospital trying to work something out, but it ended up with me sitting on $15,000 in bills. After that I went to the hospital and after some work with them ended up paying about $3500.
Now I'm scared shitless of going to the hospital or to see a doctor. The simple fact is I shouldn't be scared to seek out medical help. There needs to be some kind of afordable coverage that wont pull the rug out from under you and covers you where ever you are.
-
It's not like weight issues are the only self inflicted health problems in the world. What about people smoking and drinking themselves to death?
How am I supposed to know if people are smoking/drinking themselves to death just by looking at them? Give me a break here
-
How am I supposed to know if people are smoking/drinking themselves to death just by looking at them? Give me a break here
Drinking gives you excessive amounts of empty calories, thus fat. Therefore, if you see a fat slob that reeks of an ashtray, assume he drinks as well and just have a field day I swear I have to do all the thinking around here gawd.
-
if that always fails you could give them this questionaire.
The Happy Funtime Drunk/Fat Bastard Survey
1. Do you drink more than one bottle of Jim Beam a day?
a. Yes
b. No
c. aourhgorhjg
2. Do you visit more a fast food chain more than 7 times a week?
a. Yes
b. No
c. BIG MAC SUPERSIZE NOW DAMNIT
3. Are you currently too busy drinking/eating yourself to death to take this survey?
a. No
b.
-
By the way, everything in this thread that may have even been slightly questioning Obama's plan has been reported to flag@whitehouse.gov (http://www.zombo.com) :evil:
-
/me edits url to the Gold Standard
-
/me edits url to the Gold Standard
RON PAUL
-
Now imagine having to pay for her health care. :x I don't fucking want to!!
But we already are paying for her health care, especially catastrophic care, if she's uninsured. And even if she is insured, someone is still paying for her healthcare if her healthcare needs are above average.
You know, folks, this bill shouldn't be such a big deal. It wouldn't make any noticeable difference to the working man, and no difference at all to the wealthy. And it might help some of the less fortunate among us. It should be tidied up a bit to quiet the fears of those who heed the fear-mongers (it is not, for instance, a left-wing conspiracy to subvert the Bill of Rights), but it's not bad as bills go.
In general, I think objections to socialized medicine are misplaced.
Where I work, we are offered a group plan that costs a set amount, so some people who work here pay over 10% of income for health insurance, and others are paying less than 5%. A few of my co-workers have a slew of ongoing medical expenses, most have a few, and a few don't have any. So the healthiest (and often least-paid and youngest) among us are supporting the sickest. But hey, that's how group insurance works, right? As opposed to that horrible other idea -- socialized medicine.
If we as a society don't have the bottle to let people suffer for lack of health care, then we as a society will always be footing the bill for the least able, least responsible, and often least deserving. No civilized society has found a solution to this conundrum; we in the US, by railing against socialized medicine, are only postponing the inevitable. It is the only moral option; in the end, society must care for its ill because it is morally abhorent not to.
We already have what amounts to institutionalized health care, except the entities governing it, aside from government, are for-profit organizations. My first brush with HMOs years ago made me think "Hey, just like Soviet Russia!". Well, if our health care already FEELS like it's socialized medicine, then just bite the bullet and go full-monty socialized, and cut the insurance industry out of the picture.
Either that, or take both government and the insurance industry out of it, and let everyone pay healthcare providers the actual cost of healthcare -- and let everyone get only the healthcare they can afford.
So fish or cut bait: Go full-bore socialized or pure-grain private. But don't deceive yourselves: the present US healthcare "system" is an institutionalized, bureaucratic and fascistic collusion of government and big business.
Whenever we have a national debate about socialized medicine, we predictably hear a bunch of horror stories about mismanaged, botched, substandard and denied health care in other countries. That's ok. It helps us forget all the horror stories about mismanaged, botched, substandard and denied health care in our own country. And hey, at least it's not socialized mismanaged, botched, substandard and denied health care.
-
When you’ve made your decision between the power bill or some Ramen noodles; get back to me.
What did you end up choosing?
-
woah... wbd!
-
What did you end up choosing?
I asked the same thing in my apology PM; but she hasn't gotten back to me. So Im guessing she picked the Ramen noodles.
-
I'm quite shocked that you take that standpoint, ivan. I personally have 3 arguments against the national health insurance plans (any of them) and I have yet to hear anyone refute these.
1) Not once in the history of the US government has any substantial agency or program ever stayed within budget over a period of a decade or so. It is likely that, like the Medicare program, it will grow to 600X the projected cost within a decade or two.
B) 9th amendment.
3) 10th amendment.
-
I'm quite shocked that you take that standpoint, ivan. I personally have 3 arguments against the national health insurance plans (any of them) and I have yet to hear anyone refute these.
1) Not once in the history of the US government has any substantial agency or program ever stayed within budget over a period of a decade or so. It is likely that, like the Medicare program, it will grow to 600X the projected cost within a decade or two.
B) 9th amendment.
3) 10th amendment.
Well, my position is not that socialized medicine is the best solution -- only the ineviatable one; and that fighting the inevitable yields worse results than embracing it and helping shape it. So your arguments stand unrefuted.
The LP offers a solution that passes your test: Government stays out of healthcare completely -- that means, no medi-care/caid, no Veterans hospitals, shut down the FDA, launch tort reforms to reduce malpractice liability costs, eliminate any and all government healthcare subsidies for everyone, period. People pay for almost all medical care out-of-pocket, and choose to buy affordable coverage for expensive medical procedures from a variety of thriving insurance providers.
Sounds wonderful. That's the world I'd like to live in. However, even if all of that could be achieved, this vision relies either on the absence of an underclass (the unemployed, the homeless, the mentally ill, criminals, addicts), or on our willingness to allow an underclass to suffer, in our midst, without adequate care. We have no working plan to achieve the former. The latter, simply, will not be tolerated. Underclasses fester in Rio, not here.
The presence of an underclass is what fuels the drive towards socialized medicine. As long as a goodly amount of people continue falling through society's cracks, the idea that government should do something about it will not go away. It doesn't matter that government programs are inefficient -- government is the only entity with both the resources and the will to attempt to solve, however inefficiently, a problem that is apparently getting worse.
If the thought of government-run health care is sufficiently loathesome to enough people, maybe that will move a greater part of our society to solve social problems through private means; maybe this is a wake-up call to all right-thinking anti-socialists to finally rise up and do something about the ills that, shamefully, are tolerated in the most affluent society on earth; maybe we'll all take the libertarian ideal of personal responsibility, and the Christian ideals of compassion and charity, and assume personal responsibility for those who cannot.
Wait... Is that a pig I see flying past my window?
-
woah... wbd!
Wbd?
Walloping Bob Dylan?
Wacky Bat Dung?
Whiskey Beer Drambuie?
-
Where Be Dragons?
-
We've heard the claim that US health care is the best, or among the best in the world. Usually, this is offered as an "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" argument. However, rarely is one presented with any kind of metric on the basis of which this claim is made.
We certainly are the most, or one of the most advanced in the field. But does that translate to high quality health care for individuals?
Amenable mortality statistics. (http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/08/amenable-mortality-us-health-care-system-versus-other-countries-.html)
Ten years ago, we could point at the Brits, the Fins, the Portugese and the Irish and laugh. Ha-ha-ha, we are better at keeping people from dying of illness than you-oo. (Of course, we would have to dissemble when it came to pretty much every other developed country. And now, as of just a couple years ago, we have to sip quitely from our big cup of STFU and wonder how the hell we ended up LAST.
Well, the reason we ended up last -- meaning we are the worst at keeping people from dying from illness among developed nations -- is because our health-care "system", such as it is, is broken.
A health-care system's overriding purpose, its very reason for being, must be to keep people healthy. What is the overriding principle that propels our healthcare system towards better care for the individual?
Well?
For another, less direct metric, look at life expectancy by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy). The British and Canadians, with their unspeakably horrid health care, are outliving us. We don't do so hot with regard to infant mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate), either.
I suppose we can take solice in the knowledge that we outlive the average shmo born in Swaziland. But maybe we should quietly, surreptitiously take a peek at France, what with their cradle-to-grave healthcare, enviable life expectancy and their unparalleled ability to keep people from dying of desease. And don't talk to me about taxes -- we, all of us here, are already paying about as much in taxes and expenses as they are, and getting less back.
-
what should i do wehn teh obama death squad comes to take granny away i'm serious guyz
-
I don't have any living grandparents, not my problem dude.
-
My grandmother reached her centennial a few weeks ago. That's gotta be a red flag for the death panels.
-
Yeah but who did she vote for? I thought the ODS was only going after republicans.
-
I reject qualitative arguments regarding this issue, instead relying as I always have on the underlying principles at stake.
-
so what i will just tell them i voted obama like everybody else wut r they gonna do n e ways its not liek they keep trak of vote records my uncle says they do but he also talks to teh flowers on the enddtable and screams at the ceiling fan to quit reading his thoughts so he may not be rite
-
Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I know; one of the shorter bills is over 600 pages long. Then there's that 1000 page one. I have heard contradiction after contradiction from pro-Obamacare officials in explaining what is going to happen; in addition to admissions of "well, I don't really know what's in the bill; I haven't read it yet...", and so on so often, I would oppose it soley because no one seems to know what it is exactly, and what its actually going to do , exactly.
U.S.Postal / FedEx / UPS ...?
-
I reject qualitative arguments regarding this issue, instead relying as I always have on the underlying principles at stake.
The underlying principle I'm grappling with is: how does the most advanced, prosperous and resourceful society in history tolerate poverty and suffering in its midst?
The conclusion is: it can't, for long.
Sure, I believe that individuals unfettered by taxation and regulation can form a humane and relatively blight-free society; but we are not unfettered, and will remain fettered for the forseeable future. In the mean time, there are people who can't in good conscience stand by idly while many among us fall through the cracks. These people will consider only one underlying principle: it is immoral to stand by and do nothing. They will attempt to wield the most powerful tool for social change at their disposal: government.
-
Efficiency and progress is ours
once a more
now that we have the neutron bomb...
-
it is immoral to stand by and do nothing.
I assume those very same people would be fine if government decided that eating meat was immoral and banned it? Or if atheism was immoral? Or that [fill in the blank] was immoral?
The problem with using moral justification of government use of force is that one loses any right to complain when someone whose morals they find disagreeable use government to force theirs upon everyone.
-
how does the most advanced, prosperous and resourceful society in history tolerate poverty and suffering in its midst?
No offense, I know you mean well, but this really is patriotic BS, not to mention historically incorrect and arrogant. Patriotic nonsense makes is so much harder to find flaws, study their causes and correct them.
It is perhaps a scary thought that there are other developed countries in the world and many have surpassed or equalled America in many areas. But wouldn't it make more sense to study those areas and come up with ways to get America back in the game, rather than using patriotic nonsense to cover them up? Just like one famous American president, who just recently kept referring to American workers as the most productive workers in the world. Why can they just get away with such comforting but obvious lies? If you won't face the problem, or refuse even the possibility that there might be a problem, how are you going to address it?
Well, we are seeing just that right now. Facts don't matter when such a large percentage of Americans refuse to believe anything but "we have the best healthcare in the world, why change a winning team, look at how bad the other teams are...".
For those of you who read my earlier comment in this thread, my prediction for next year? Jackpot. My healthcare costs are going up by at least 10% next year. AGAIN.
-
from each according to he ability, to each according to his need
translation: healthy people (me) get the finger, paying for everyone else's meds.
only they get the finger, too, because the government sucks at doing anything.
-
No offense, I know you mean well, but this really is patriotic BS,
Uhm, not really sure what you're on about. First of all, I rarely mean well. Second, when I use the words "most advanced, prosperous and resourceful society in history", I am being ironic. Or wry. Or something like that.
But wow, I don't think I've ever been called patriotic before.
-
Facts don't matter when such a large percentage of Americans refuse to believe anything but "we have the best healthcare in the world, why change a winning team, look at how bad the other teams are...".
Oh, I get it. You think that I think America has the best healthcare in the world.
But actually, just yesterday, in this very thread I posted links to statistics that refute that premise.
So you're just one of those blokes with low reading comprehension, which greatly diminishes my brief elation at being called a patriot.
-
that study is completely misrepresented, and you misrepresent it even more.
first of all, 60 to 100 or so amenable deaths per 100,000 is a really good ratio. that's a negligible potion of the population. reallydoesnt get a lot better than that. secondly, American deaths actually went down in the represented time period. they just went down faster in the other countries. thirdly (and this is mentioned in the article) the countries represented have very different lifestyles. Simply put, Americans don't eat well(completely different debate entirely). this makes comparison on the basis of health care difficult. lastly, does it occur to anyone why America ended up "last" in that study? why stop at the exact number that America happens to be at? I bet if they didn't, the other countries would make America look really peachy.
-
I assume those very same people would be fine if government decided that eating meat was immoral and banned it? Or if atheism was immoral? Or that [fill in the blank] was immoral?
We already have that; in abundance, thanks to the unshakable "belief" that this is a Christian nation. How many of you can buy beer on Sunday? I can't. It is illegal. Why Sunday, hmm?
How about this - (esp. the last part): [ from: http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/flux/gSpot/sexLaw.html (http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/flux/gSpot/sexLaw.html) ]
"There was a case featured in the November 1996 issue of "Marie Claire" involving an Atlanta wife who tried to have her soon-to-be ex-husband charged with rape. She had persuaded her then hubby to tie her up and later used the bondage as a means of proving that the sex had not been consensual. Her sister came forward and informed the court of the plot against the man, but there was another twist in the story.
Although the man was acquitted on the rape charge, the man was sentenced to five years in jail for having performed oral sex on the woman. He had admitted to that during the course of the case and so he was charged and sentenced under Georgia law."
The last thing private citizens need is more government in their lives.
I have a serious question, though. Why do we not address the actual problem –which; I’m fairly sure we all agree is the insurance scam “industry”. THAT is what people can’t - and should be able to – afford. The problem isn’t our health care; its access to it. People are denied coverage for a variety of reasons – all in the insurance companies’ projected financial favour, of course; having nothing to do with the patient’s health or needs. I work for VerizonBusiness (OOO!! I bet you got GOOD insurance!) Yep, I do; for what it will cover. But I have to take Paxil every day for cataplexy / narcolepsy. Covered? Hell no. I just had Lasik done to correct my vision. Covered? Hell no. I’ve just had three serious dental surgeries, four fillings put in, and an estimate for an implant. Covered? Hell no.
I have had an ongoing chronic issue with my hips and lower back that I am probably going to have to have physical therapy for; possibly surgery. Covered? ANY of it? Hell no. AND I HAVE WHAT’S CONSIDERD SOME OF THE BEST INSURANCE. I wouldn’t have been able to get any of this done had my estranged wife not died and forgot to change me as her beneficiary.
It isn’t “insurance” anymore. You can pay whatever their premium is; and you aren’t “insured” on anything. Any claim you make – even backed up with “proof” – will be challenged by your insurance company; and if they can get out of it by any means possible – they will. How is THAT being “insured”?
Any “healthcare reform” should leave the healthcare alone and revamp the insurance industry. Let every company sell policies in every state; competitiveness, in addition to other regulations, would help drive the cost down. Another idea – maybe a bit simplified, is simply “bumper-to-bumper coverage”. You get insurance, and you are insured. There should be no haggling over what or if it is a disease or a ‘condition’; no second-guessing the doctor that examined the patient and recommended a specified treatment by accountants looking at “the numbers”. It’s an INSURANCE company; not a medical review board. Force them to get back to their business of figuring out how many policies to sell and services to offer to cover potential losses instead of basically shutting down coverage and only allowing what the deem necessary while continually upping your premium. Another question I have is why am I wasting my time typing this…
-
So you're just one of those blokes with low reading comprehension, which greatly diminishes my brief elation at being called a patriot.
Touché :)
-
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDM5NDJkMDA2ODJlNmMxY2VhYmI2NGJhZGEwZGFlNjU= (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDM5NDJkMDA2ODJlNmMxY2VhYmI2NGJhZGEwZGFlNjU=)
-
Found in that article:
Meanwhile, the independent Lewin Group estimates
Waitaminute....
Lewin group linked to private insurers (http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2009/04/lewin-group-linked-to-private-insurers/)
Insurer-Owned Consulting Firm Often Cited in Health Debate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203696.html)
"I do not think that word means what you think it means"... but I digress.
Question 2 assumes that the first question results in an answer that results in increased spending. Question 1 is a good question, and makes a good point that we should be getting more for our money right now- we really ought to be allocating our resources better. If someone can answer Question 1 in a way that doesn't increase our spending, then Question 2 is moot.
I like Question 3.
I don't get Question 4- this is probably because I personally have no real bias in the abortion debate. Abortions being performed now are paid for just fine in the existing system- I see no need to have taxpayers paying for them, but I also don't see why this needs to be a centerpoint argument in a much larger debate. I guess I feel like Question 4 has less to do with healthcare and more to do with abortion, which is a completely different problem, IMO.
I also like Question 5. What's "for the people, by the people" mean if you're not in the same boat as all the rest of us?
I've got nothing on questions 6 or 7. Not that I can't have an opinion, but I haven't done the research to talk about it and I won't speak out of turn.
8 makes a good point. Government does not have a reputation for being the most effective manager of any given system, much less the existing healthcare programs. This shouldn't be an argument for doing nothing, though. There are legitimate problems with our system that need remedies.
Number 9 assumes, again, that a solution involves spending more money. I want to see another solution.
Which is where Tom comes in with Question 10. I've felt for a few months that we've rushed headlong into this healthcare debacle, and I can't help but think that anything with that much impetus is bound to crash badly. I don't mean that I'm against this healthcare bill, I mean that our elected officials should have taken more time to study the issue and come up with something that really works, not just for today, but for the next 20, 40, 60 years. Because I'm not looking forward to reaching my golden age at a time when you have to threaten your doctor with a spear to get a boil looked at because the US lost the Great Healthcare War of 2031.
Also, I think it's a little funny that most Senators go by "Senator" but in the middle of a healthcare debate Tom Coburn's senatorial website calls him "Dr. Coburn". Maybe that's normal, for a doctor turned politician, but it doesn't hurt him politically, either.
[/twocents]
-
Also, I don't know if anyone really cares about the comparison between Canadian and US health care systems, but Wikipedia has an article on the topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared)
-
Also, I don't know if anyone really cares about the comparison between Canadian and US health care systems, but Wikipedia has an article on the topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared)
I just edited that article to say AMERICA ROCKS YOUR SOCKS SUCK IT CANADIAN BITCHES.
Hey, it's on Wikipedia so it MUST be true! :wink:
-
I assume those very same people would be fine if government decided that eating meat was immoral and banned it? Or if atheism was immoral? Or that [fill in the blank] was immoral?
The problem with using moral justification of government use of force is that one loses any right to complain when someone whose morals they find disagreeable use government to force theirs upon everyone.
This is probably pummelling a moribund equine, but the national argument, as I understood it, was not over whether something should be done, but rather what solutions will work. I took the position that oposing a public option on principle is, to put it mildly, callous. A public option might be the only alternative our society can offer at this time; rather than oppose it on principle, our goal should be to limit its use to those who need it, and make it as efficient as we can.
Fact is, we have a whopping public option in place right now, and the people it benefits -- our parents and grandparents -- have no desire to see it dismantled. It can be made more efficient, maybe, but by and large it's doing the job. This public option is not available to young people, no matter their predicament. Simply put, it should be. It should be available to all who need it, and it should be strictly managed and made to work as well as possible.
I've made the argument that government isn't capable of running an efficient program, but lately the argument has become tired and a meaningless slogan. In reality, a lot of gov't programs are run as well as they'd be in the private sector. As much as people like to trash the postal service, for example, it accomplishes a staggering task for not a lot of money.
In the end, the main reason the inept-government argument does not hold water is simple: like soylent green, it's people. Theories and tendencies and human nature and such aside, if it can be done in the private sector, it can be done in the public sector as well. We boast some of the most industrious and intelligent people on the planet, and they don't magically turn into braindead parasites just because their paycheck sports an official seal. In other words, if anyone can make a schizoid laissez-faire/socialist hybrid work, then by golly we sure as hell can, and be the best at it, too.
Let's just take care of the most eggregious problems still plaguing us in the most direct and efficient way we can think of and move on. Public sector, private sector, whatever. Just fucking take care of it already.
-
I simply cannot support any public option that is funded by a means that doesn't provide a way for individuals to opt out of its services AND its expense. I refuse to compromise my principles for utilitarianist arguments; at this point, the public option may in fact be the best option in the world.
But, in the immortal words of Jules from Pulp Fiction, "sewer rat might taste like pumpkin pie, but I wouldn't know, because I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker".
Harming many to help some is never the answer.
"Do not consider Collectivists as 'sincere but deluded idealists'. The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; brutality is not 'idealistic,' no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to 'do good' by force is a good motive. Neither power, lust, nor stupidity are good motives."
-- Ayn Rand
Ivan, the argument you've made smacks of "well, voting for a 3rd party candidate only ensures that I'm voting for someone who will NEVER win, and will never be elected, so I might as well vote for the lesser of two evils."
That kind of defeatist thinking is a big part of the problem in this country. Just because it seems inevitable that one of the harmful options is the one to "win" never excuses the mindset of "well, since it's inevitable, I may as well throw my support behind the least harmful option among them".
In the end, that only guarantees that we end up with a harmful option. I will not play that game. One has to draw the line. I refuse to be a party to any proposal that increases the size, scope, influence, and cost of government, and I don't care if I happen to be the only opposition to it. I will not be a contributor to the continued erosion of our liberties simply on the grounds of "well SOMETHING must be done". If that something involves harming many to help some, it is not an acceptable option, even if the end result is the best system in the world.
-
I simply cannot support any public option that is funded by a means that doesn't provide a way for individuals to opt out of its services AND its expense.
You cannot opt out of public healthcare expenses as it is now. We are paying for the existing public option for seniors, and for the private options of government employess. But even worse, the uninsured are driving up both the cost of healthcare and the cost of insurance for everyone. So those of us with means are already paying for the healthcare of those of us without, but in a chaotic, inefficient way that drives costs yet higher. You may think you're eating pumpkin pie, but the sewer rat has been baked right in.
Given that I am stuck in this hybrid laissez-faire/socialist society, I would at least like the 40% removed from my paycheck to be used less for bombs and foolishness and more to improve American lives. That is what is at stake, those are the cards that have been dealt. Your options are limited: you can take care of the underclass, or let it rot. But if you decide to take care of it, there is only one resource available: public money. Enlightened self-interest doesn't work very well in a society where the poor are shunned, resented and blamed for their own problems.
I would love to see it all torn down and built up from scratch, this time avoiding the mistakes made the first time around. But to actually do that is, of course, unthinkable. Any progress made towards a less statist society will be incremental and built on compromise. Expanding the public option to include 40 million uninsured can be seen as harming many to help some; but dismantling the current safety net would also be harming many to help some. We are stuck with it. Our society cannot succeed as a pure laissez faire economy, because it is not a pure laissez faire economy. It cannot succeed as a socialist state, because it is not a socialist state. It is a hybrid, and it will only succeed as a hybrid. Which means an occassional sewer rat for lunch.
-
About social security: somebody has to get the finger. We get rid of it now, the current generation of elderly will get it. We do it later, our parents get it. We wait even later, and we get it. Somebody will have to pay into that money-hemorrhaging program thier entire lives, and then not get a dime for it.
I just hope it isn't me, frankly. Better to get the whole thing done and gone. And make no mistake, either it will go (bankruptcy can do that) or it'll be incorporated into Obamacare.
Of course, if Obamacare is instituted, then I suppose there will be a lot less old people, so we wont be paying for them as much. Hooray for profiting from the misfortune of others!
-
There's an incredible amount of stuff to consider here, none of which bodes well for a public health insurance plan. Aside from the actual costs, the entire medical infrastructure is problematic in a way not easily reversible.
Example: insurance companies pay physicians a "usual and customary" amount based on procedure. These "usual and customary" amounts are quite arbitrary and do not reflect the actual costs of the procedure. For instance, a CAT scan will result in an insurance payout of several hundred dollars, even though the technology has been around for decades, the machine has long since paid-for, and the actual labor and overhead are pretty small. And insurance companies HATE paying for mere consultations.
The biggest problem is on the supply side. The HMO model (which a public option would glom onto) puts the bulk of the administration on the primary care provider. This means the primary care provider spends more time on (non-billable) paperwork than (s)he does on what (s)he went to med school for. Everyone knows the big bucks are in surgical specialization (cardiology, neurology, oncology, etc.) This means family doctors and primary care physicians take the job because they love the nature of the work. But that core work is giving way to paperwork, and physicians willing to be primary care providers are dwindling.
Basically, in order for any sort of health care to work, you have to have health care providers at each step of the way. And who would become a primary care provider if you're not gonna get your loans paid off before you're ready to retire?
-
Social Security is a ponzi scheme.
-
Yes, Mr. Abramoff, it is. But that's no defense.
-
This whole healthcare thing would be solved completely if we were to just cut out the middleman. Doesn't matter if that's insurance, the government, whatever. If everyone just paid to take care of their own bodies, the price would go down and it would be affordable. All insurance does is encourage doctors to charge outrageous fees, because the insurance will cover it no matter what. Then the insurance companies have to compensate because the doctors charge so much, by passing those costs on to the insured.
Health insurance was originally designed to protect you from devastating illness, something nobody could pay for. But nowadays insurance is expected to cover almost everything, and what people don't realize is that they're paying for it no matter what. The insurance company has to run a profit, end of story. Unless you get some terrible illness, you will end up paying more in insurance than insurance ever pays out to you.
The government is much the same, except that there will be no competition whatsoever, and the government is not obligated to run a profit, so there's no motivation to give quality care.
-
If everyone just paid to take care of their own bodies, the price would go down and it would be affordable.
That's leaving out a portion of the populous that isn't employed, the homeless and the elderly who are already living on a meager fixed income. They'd be screwed. Well, they're already kinda screwed as is but they'd be even MORE screwed.
Of course the health insurance companies have to run a profit. This is not a ground breaking realization, it's just how privatized business operates. It can be a noble cause such as 'here's your shots to fix your drippy dick, that'll be a $15 copay please' and not-so noble causes like 'hey let's plop down this here mega store and run all other business out of the town. Hookers and blow for all!' There's nothing wrong with making some profit, providing it's done in a responsible way. I fully expect to pay in more to my health insurance company than it will pay out to myself. Same thing with my auto-insurance. God knows I've been mandated by the state to pay for car insurance which I haven't really used at all. It's for the Greater Good after all.
the government is not obligated to run a profit
And they've done a fine job demonstrating that fact over and over again.
-
My girlfriend went to the ER because she couldn't get in to see a urologist in a timely manner. She was suffering from kidney stones. They hospital did some test and sent her home with the knowledge that it was kidney stones -- and something for the pain.
Total cost to her: $100
Total billed to the insurance co: $7,300
They billed $500 for the routine blood work.
They billed over $5,900 for an MRI.
THAT is what is wrong with the health care system, today.
She was 90% sure that it was just kidney stones (again). A urologist would have been fairly certain that it was just kidney stones - if she'd been able to get in to see him. The ER dr. probably knew or, was 90% sure that it was just kidney stones with a simple external examination and symptom description. But, it doesn't cost him/her anything to run the MRI and it doesn't cost the patient anything more, but it does cover the dr.'s ass in the event that it wasn't just kidney stones and the patient is of the litigious type.
-
cover the dr.'s ass in the event that it wasn't just kidney stones and the patient is of the litigious type.
Yes, defensive healthcare needs to be gotten rid of.
-
Some of you might be confused by my pro-public-option stand. How, you might ask, do I reconcile it with the LP positions I have otherwise taken? Quite simply, I don't.
Here is how I am thinking:
Let's pretend I am a guitarist, and I also believe there is no purer and truer musical expression than jazz. I despise rock and pop, barely tolerate classical and traditional music. If I were to assemble a band, I would certainly do what I can to keep it on the straight and pure path of jazz. But gosh, the only band in the entire world that's looking for a guitarist turns out to be BAAB, an ABBA cover band. As much as I hate to admit it, a large segment of the listening audience adores this band. Reluctantly, I sign on and begin attending rehearsals. But there is not a single song being performed that I can wholeheartedly embrase, let alone condone. I look at my options. To reshape the band into something remotely pallatable, I would have to dismantle it and rebuild it from scratch, which is not an option. Leaving the band is also not an option. So I become a PITA primadonna, refusing outright to play anything unless it is made to sound at least a little like jazz, and so grind the band down to the point where nothing ever gets played and all our time is spent arguing. The day of the big performance comes, and as I stand on stage in my white polyester jumpsuit I catch the eye of a sweet little lass who spent her life savings just to see us play. But instead of playing, we continue arguing about what should be played, and how it should be played. The audience begins to dwindle, but I see the little girl standing there with no where to go. And I think, you know -- it's not the pure, clean sound of jazz this little girl needs most of all right now (although it would be much better for her in the long run). Right now, she needs Dancing Queen. So I do it for her. And then, after the show, I go back to trying to get the rest of the clowns in the band to see things my way.
-
Or, to put it another way:
When it comes to the underclass, our hybrid system is failing both as a socialist state and as a capitalist state. One or the other side of this schizoid mass mind needs to step forward and take care of the problem. If the problem is not taken care of in some way, ALL of us suffer. I really don't care how the problem is solved -- an increase in government, or some magic voodoo trickle-down fairy dust -- whatever. But what I do think is that rational people can come up with a workable compromise.
-
So instead of cutting the cancer out, you're in favour of just selecting a different form of cancer that will kill the patient in 10 years instead of only 8.
-
So instead of cutting the cancer out, you're in favour of just selecting a different form of cancer that will kill the patient in 10 years instead of only 8.
There is no workable plan on the table for cutting out the cancer.
I don't like it any more than you do, but doing nothing will at some point cease to be an option.
-
There's a number of excellent workable plans. But none of them involve increasing the power and scope and cost of government, so they're not being entertained, mainly because none of the members of government ever willingly decrease their own power.
-
...because none of the members of government ever willingly decrease their own power.
Like I said, there is no workable plan. You would have to replace 85% of legislaters with people who don't think like them before you could get something done. Or fire them without replacement.
How will we do that?
-
In the mean time, as long as we're stuck with a gang of quasi-socialist dogs in mangers, maybe we should expect them to do a job they have undertaken in a throrogh and effective manner. When we became a wellfare state seventy years ago, government was entrusted with a certain mission. It is failing in that mission. I don't think that failure is inherent. I think that we can be a better, more efficient wellfare state without further growing government.
Dismantling the wellfare state is a long-term plan. In the mean time, there is no excuse for poverty in this country.
-
Like I said, there is no workable plan. You would have to replace 85% of legislaters with people who don't think like them before you could get something done. Or fire them without replacement.
How will we do that?
I don't have an answer to that.
Lately I've begun to give serious thought to the oft-repeated notion that democracy is hostile to liberty.
Unless more people wake up and realize where this lunacy is taking us, all we can count on with this kind of thinking is that eventually the cancer will kill the patient.
When sane treatment options aren't even on the table, the only option is to accept one that is still guaranteed to fail?
No, I refuse to accept that. And if those are my options, I refuse to choose. All that does is give validation to those smug, power-mongering assholes, and they don't deserve validation.
So I'll say it again. I refuse to be party to any option that doesn't allow individuals to opt out of the plan AND the expense. I will never, ever support any option that only serves to make things worse for most, especially when its clearly stated goal is to help "a few".
Force me to choose between Cancer #1 and Cancer #2 and I choose neither.
-
In the mean time, as long as we're stuck with a gang of quasi-socialist dogs in mangers, maybe we should expect them to do a job they have undertaken in a throrogh and effective manner. When we became a wellfare state seventy years ago, government was entrusted with a certain mission. It is failing in that mission. I don't think that failure is inherent. I think that we can be a better, more efficient wellfare state without further growing government.
Dismantling the wellfare state is a long-term plan. In the mean time, there is no excuse for poverty in this country.
Come to think of it, perhaps I should reverse my stance.
I choose whichever public healthcare option that will cause the most havoc, the most strife, and the largest cost.
Maybe that will wake people up enough to realize that expecting the government to do everything for them only leads to disaster.
Then again, if people haven't realized that yet, they probably never will.
On a related note, the wife and I have talked about it, and we're giving very serious thought to moving to New Hampshire (http://www.freestateproject.org/).
-
I choose whichever public healthcare option that will cause the most havoc, the most strife, and the largest cost.
In a way, that is how the SU unraveled.
Rather than the cancer simile, think of it as a virus -- it just needs to run its course, and it can get pretty nasty before it begins to go away. There is nothing wrong with making the patient as comfortable as possible in the mean time -- it neither prolongs the illness nor hastens the cure.
And moving to NH and acting locally is exactly the kind of personal decision one can make and remain true to oneself.
-
I'm all for getting the Free State Project to critical mass in NH and pushing for secession, myself.
-
I don't have an answer to that.
Oh, I'll field this one. March on the Capitol with sporting equipment.
Hold on, there's a knock at my doo~~~~NO CARRIER~~~~~~~~~
-
I'm all for getting the Free State Project to critical mass in NH and pushing for secession, myself.
The US might be too complex for a laissez faire economy. But a smaller state might be able to swing it. If you do pull it off, I hope I'll qualify under your immigration policies (open borders would not be an option, I'm afraid -- that's at least one compromise you'll have to live with).
I think about this during my commute. I am a careful, responsible and courteous driver. All I need in order to arrive safely to my destination is for all my fellow motorists to also be careful, responsible and courteous drivers. On our neighborhood streets, there are no stop signs or dividing lines, but everyone is responsible enough for that not to be an issue. When I emerge onto the busier streets outside the neighborhood, I am thankful for the lines and stop signs -- and for the presence of law enforsement. But traffic still moves, albeit less efficiently, mostly without incident. And then there are the so-called freeways where, at peak hours, traffic grinds nearly to a halt.
As I inch along the freeway, I see people doing stupid, self-defeating things like slowing down for no good goddam reason, or zooming along the shoulder past stalled traffic in order to cram into a lane 3 car lengths ahead of where they were, or any number of other boneheaded stunts. This is where polite society breaks down and everyone claws for an advantage like crabs in a barrel. Enlightened self-interest goes right out the window in those conditions. Individually, by and large, I'm sure my fellow commuters would do just fine on the unregulated honor-system streets of my neighborhood, but when a certain critical mass is reached humans behave like assholes, and assholes both need and deserve all the laws and regulations you can throw at them.
It's not an accident that traffic metaphors are applied to government.
-
Force me to choose between Cancer #1 and Cancer #2 and I choose neither.
In other words, you'll quit the band before you play "Mama Mia".
Well, I said before that quitting the band is not an option, but that was just for the purpose of argument. It is actually the only option.
-
What if after you play Dancing Queen, they want you to do Brittany Spears and Lil Wayne covers?
-
What if after you play Dancing Queen, they want you to do Brittany Spears and Lil Wayne covers?
The band only plays ABBA covers, and it plays them well. It is specifically designed to play ABBA covers. If it shows up at a gig and people complain that they don't do Lil Wayne covers, I have no sympathy for the complainers, and no problem with the band. But if the band sets out to be a damn good ABBA cover band, then shows up at a gig and fails to give a great ABBA set, then every complaint is justified and the band is failing to carry out its mission.
We are a largly socialistic country. Public schools, public roads, public medical care for the elderly and children, public law enforsement, public military, public space exploration, public media, public museums, subsidized and protected industries. We know how to make socialism work pretty well, even while pretending to have no part of it.
There are three models for eliminating the underclass:
1. The Black Hole of Calcutta model. Let them rot.
2. The laissez-faire model: dismantle our socialistic public works, fire 85% of government, privatize everything, lift restrictions on private enterprize, and let things sort themselves out.
3. The socialist model.
Like it or not, the only model with any track record for success in reducing poverty on a mass scale is Number 3, and, also like it or not, one of the countries that has had the most success implementing that model in reducing poverty is America. I like to say that American capitalism's biggest success is that it can make even socialism work.
The way I understand it, the public option in health care is mainly a measure to provide health insurance -- or health care itself -- to people who can't pay for it. Which means, for free. Which means, the rest of us pay for it. If we don't pay for it, they don't get health insurance, and we're back to option 1: they rot.
Oh, I forgot option 4: Giant international bake sale. We're actually doing that too.
-
Why are you assuming that the goal is to reduce poverty?
-
I agree. Poverty sucks, but no matter what it is going to exist. Try to eliminate it completely (I.E. pure socialism) and the entire population just sinks down into poverty.
And Ivan, please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that the best course of action is to basically go away from socialism in the long run by toying with it in the short run? Let me introduce you to my friend, the Temporary Toll. You know, the one that supposedly pays for the road initially, then goes away later? And then, you know, doesn't go away?
The same is true for government in general. Let government have one tiny little power, and it will beg for more. Government is a black hole of power. Taking the power back is nearly impossible. It is almost never accomplished by anything short of revolution. There is no way in the world to accomplish smaller government by making the government bigger.
-
There is no way in the world to accomplish smaller government by making the government bigger.
For the life of me I cant understand why that isn't self-evident to people.
ivan, there are more than those three choices. You yourself mentioned hybrids and that "I do think is that rational people can come up with a workable compromise." Tort reform and open every state to every insurance company; let them market health plans (that's what they "DO") is another option.
It has also been pointed out that the federal government cannot "force" you to "purchase" anything. That is entirely unconstitutional. If one cannot opt OUT of paying the impending tax; that is the net effect.
We all know it makes good sense to wear a coat out when it's freezing. If you don't, you may very likely become ill; and require a doctor's care. But just because it makes good sense gives the fed no authority to MAKE you go BUY a coat. It's a known fact as well that homeless people aren't as healthy as people who have a home; why should the feds not require everyone to purchase a house? If they can force you to buy insurance (via taxes; or any other method) then what's stopping them from requiring you to purchase a house? Even more to the point; since you already own (or are buying) your own home; this 'tax' imposed on YOUR income doesn't buy YOU a new home; no, it buys that poor, homeless, 68 year old a house. Meanwhile, your house payment is still due monthly; or you lose YOUR home.
Yeh. That sounds like a nice plan. :slap :w:
-
No. Like Medicare, anything that passes as an expansion of government into US health care will simply never, ever go away.
As it is, it's political suicide to even hint at reducing Medicare. Or Social Security for that matter.
Historically speaking, entitlement programs don't go away. Ever.
-
The way I understand it, the public option in health care is mainly a measure to provide health insurance -- or health care itself -- to people who can't pay for it. Which means, for free. Which means, the rest of us pay for it. If we don't pay for it, they don't get health insurance, and we're back to option 1: they rot.
I can't speak for anyone else here, but when I'm able, I contribute to a number of charities.
Funny thing is, that's voluntary... and yet I do it anyway. I've heard that at least a few others do too. Imagine how much more folks could give if they didn't give up 1/3 to 1/2 of their income to local, state and federal government to disappear down the Black Hole of Bureaucracy?
I know I'd be giving more. There's a number of charities out there that are designed to provide health care to those who cannot afford access on their own.
Not to mention, there's a big numbers problem here that occurred to me yesterday.
(this is an unscientific representation, so don't try pinning proportion to me here, I'm just illustrating a point).
Population increase in the US has more or less flattened out since the 1960s. It's still rising, but the big boom has been done for a long time, particularly since after the 60s, people just weren't having as many children, a trend that continues.
Baby Boomers and elderly in the US: (many of whom already qualify for Medicare)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Everyone Else:
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
When you consider that Medicare -- a system which we already have in place to pay for health care for those who cannot afford it -- is already handling (or will already be handling) the bulk of those who can't pay for their own medical costs... why the headlong, breakneck RUSH to scramble some cobbled-together 1000-page boondoggle to handle the smaller demographic?
I simply refuse to see this as anything other than a scare tactic used to push a power grab. Same as anything else government rushes through with this kind of frenzy of urgency.
Anything this ill-conceived and this "urgent" CAN'T be good. It doesn't make sense by the numbers.
Of course, with all the baby boomers going on Medicare and Social Security at roughly the same time, and with the staggering numbers of unemployed already in this country (and that's only going to get worse in coming years), I suppose instead of 18% of Americans under 65 being uninsured, we'll probably be looking at government-induced crushing poverty to pay for Medicare and Social Security... so that 18% will most likely look more like 80% of the under 65 crowd being uninsured by 2025.
So we institute a public option to fill in that 18% gap we have now, incur an unfunded couple of TRILLION dollars to pay for it (that's an unfunded couple of trillion dollars every few years, mind you), and bring about that crushing poverty a few years early?
EDIT: bekause i cant speel.
-
Why are you assuming that the goal is to reduce poverty?
Stated goal vs implied goal. Implied is obviously line the pockets of our campaign donors so we can be re-elected, fuel our power hungry desires, and insure we are well taken care of in the process.
So why do you guys choose to do all this interesting stuff during the week that I'm on vacation?
Government has the power to effect any change, it's just not in their interest to do so.
-
Government has the power to effect any change, it's just not in their interest to do so.
Particularly with the 2nd Amendment intact.
-
... democracy is hostile to liberty.
That, I think, is the fatal flaw in the American model of country and culture. Which could be another thread entir- another sub-board, even.
-
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-- Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler [unverified]
-
"Screw all y'alls!
-- Sir Xolik Wellington the Fifth [possibly drunk at the time]
-
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
nothing is perfect. no government is sustainable, they tend to exist in cycles.
-
Why are you assuming that the goal is to reduce poverty?
There is always a drive to reduce poverty. Poverty of some is not good for society as a whole.
As long as government is seen as a means of reducing poverty, there will be those in government who will have that as a goal.
As long as government is seen as a means of reducing poverty, there will be citizens demanding that government do so.
Right now, government is seen as a means of reducing poverty by a substantial number of citizens.
-
I agree. Poverty sucks, but no matter what it is going to exist. Try to eliminate it completely (I.E. pure socialism) and the entire population just sinks down into poverty.
And Ivan, please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that the best course of action is to basically go away from socialism in the long run by toying with it in the short run? Let me introduce you to my friend, the Temporary Toll. You know, the one that supposedly pays for the road initially, then goes away later? And then, you know, doesn't go away?
The same is true for government in general. Let government have one tiny little power, and it will beg for more. Government is a black hole of power. Taking the power back is nearly impossible. It is almost never accomplished by anything short of revolution. There is no way in the world to accomplish smaller government by making the government bigger.
I am proposing that we have already veered away from a laissez-faire socio-economic system and implemented a substantial amount of socialistic measures in the name of benefiting the citizenry. I am further proposing that any movement back towards smaller government is extremely difficult and not likely to happen, because for the benefits of laissez-faire to kick in, we'd have to take away things from citizens that they will not give up without a fight. If anyone has a plan for dismantling Medicare, Social Security, the public school system, public roads and transportation, food stamps, unemployment insurance, labor unions, minimum wage, and so on and so on and so on without incurring a bloody socialist revolution, I'm listening.
The US was on the brink of just such a socialist revolution about 100 years ago. The institutionalization of labor unions and labor laws staved it off, so instead of revolution what we had was socialistic creep.
Don't hold me to proportions, I'm just illustrating a point (yes, I read ahead :wink: ):
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Pure Capitalism....................................................................We are here^.................Pure Socialism
What I am proposing is that there is no turning back. There is only going futher towards socialism.
When we do that, one of two things will happen. Either we will make socialism work well enough for it to be a stable system in the long run, or, like the Soviet Union, and for much the same reasons, our economy will collapse. And then we can start over again.
My overall, overarching, meta-argument at the root of all this is that no socio-economic system can thrive with the presence of an underclass, and, so far in human history, the only method that has been demonstrated to work in dealing with an underclass is socialism. Capitalism has failed in that regard everywhere in the world, and has repeatedly embrased socialistic elements in order to deal with poverty.
Perhaps US Capitalism failed precisely because it was thrwarted by the adoption of crippling or polluting socialistic measures. In that case, someone ought to go start a country based on solid libertarian principles and see if it can be grown to a first-world economy.
-
For the life of me I cant understand why that isn't self-evident to people.
ivan, there are more than those three choices. You yourself mentioned hybrids and that "I do think is that rational people can come up with a workable compromise." Tort reform and open every state to every insurance company; let them market health plans (that's what they "DO") is another option.
The options I listed were in regard to dealing with an underclass. These are people who do not contribute to the economy -- the unemployed and the unemployable. Tort reform won't help them buy insurance, because they can't buy anything unless we give them money.
So, again, the options are: (a) ignore the problems and let them fester; (b) dismantle socialism in this country so that the benefits of a free market can have their effect; or (c) use tax money.
Right now, we are choosing (c) for some problems, like health insurance for the elderly, and (a) for others problems, like health insurance for the unemployed.
By "workable compromise" I mean effective, efficient use of tax money where needed.
You can argue that the unemployed don't need health insurance. But if we decide that they do need it, there is only one place it will come from: us.
It has also been pointed out that the federal government cannot "force" you to "purchase" anything. That is entirely unconstitutional. If one cannot opt OUT of paying the impending tax; that is the net effect.
State governments already do. In Cali, we can't drive a car unless we purchase insurance. It's the law. I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
-
I can't speak for anyone else here, but when I'm able, I contribute to a number of charities.
Funny thing is, that's voluntary... and yet I do it anyway. I've heard that at least a few others do too. Imagine how much more folks could give if they didn't give up 1/3 to 1/2 of their income to local, state and federal government to disappear down the Black Hole of Bureaucracy?
I know I'd be giving more. There's a number of charities out there that are designed to provide health care to those who cannot afford access on their own.
Yes, that is one way that a free economy contributes to the reduction of human suffering. It is a Libertarian credo: most of us already give when we can, and would give more if we had more to give. And why is that? Because most humans who have their basic needs met are capable of compassion, and do not gladly tolerate the suffering of others. This is how a free economy and a free society works in concert with human nature to elevate society as a whole, through the free actions of individuals. I believe this could work. I also believe I'll never have a chance to see it demonstrated in this country.
So, now we have our choices again: do nothing to mitigate suffering; remake our society; or use tax dollars.
It's Hobson's choice -- and I'm using that term correctly, for the choice has already been made for us.
Americans will not, in the long run, tolerate suffering in our midst. We never have, and never will. We fought a bloody civil war on that account. We've instituted measure after measure to reduce the suffering of children, the elderly, the working and the poor. We will continue to do so as long as we exist as a nation. It is etched into our Christian roots, our Western worldviews. We imbibe compassion and mercy with our mothers' milk. We're just that way.
So, in this particular instance, given that eventually we are going to have some kind of univeral coverage, and given that we're all going to pay for it to some extent, rather than resist the inevitable it may behoove the citizenry to pressure legislators to hammer out the best plan possible.
Which is pretty much the net effect of your arguments below.
Not to mention, there's a big numbers problem here that occurred to me yesterday.
(this is an unscientific representation, so don't try pinning proportion to me here, I'm just illustrating a point).
Population increase in the US has more or less flattened out since the 1960s. It's still rising, but the big boom has been done for a long time, particularly since after the 60s, people just weren't having as many children, a trend that continues.
Baby Boomers and elderly in the US: (many of whom already qualify for Medicare)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Everyone Else:
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
When you consider that Medicare -- a system which we already have in place to pay for health care for those who cannot afford it -- is already handling (or will already be handling) the bulk of those who can't pay for their own medical costs... why the headlong, breakneck RUSH to scramble some cobbled-together 1000-page boondoggle to handle the smaller demographic?
I simply refuse to see this as anything other than a scare tactic used to push a power grab. Same as anything else government rushes through with this kind of frenzy of urgency.
Anything this ill-conceived and this "urgent" CAN'T be good. It doesn't make sense by the numbers.
Of course, with all the baby boomers going on Medicare and Social Security at roughly the same time, and with the staggering numbers of unemployed already in this country (and that's only going to get worse in coming years), I suppose instead of 18% of Americans under 65 being uninsured, we'll probably be looking at government-induced crushing poverty to pay for Medicare and Social Security... so that 18% will most likely look more like 80% of the under 65 crowd being uninsured by 2025.
So we institute a public option to fill in that 18% gap we have now, incur an unfunded couple of TRILLION dollars to pay for it (that's an unfunded couple of trillion dollars every few years, mind you), and bring about that crushing poverty a few years early?
You're right, we need a better plan.
-
I'm sure this has surfaced already in some text that I missed whilst reading all of that (damn you guys post like you're politicians or something), but I would like to return to the barter and trade system. In exchange for healthcare I will give you a bushel of fresh tomatoes and a supremely healthy milking goat. Screw this money thing, it's too annoying.
-
I don't have a goat or tomatoes, but I *can* offer some pirated mp3s, a few DVDs, and three dozen eggs.
-
I'm sure this has surfaced already in some text that I missed whilst reading ...
but I would like to return to the barter and trade system. In exchange for healthcare I will give you a bushel of fresh tomatoes and a supremely healthy milking goat. Screw this money thing, it's too annoying.
http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,6837.0.html (http://www.geekforum.org/index.php/topic,6837.0.html)
-
State governments already do. In Cali, we can't drive a car unless we purchase insurance. It's the law. I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
Yes, state governments I'm not sure about as far as 'constitutionality'; but the fed has played this same end-run around the Constitution in other matters as well; calling it the "commerce clause". There is a convoluted explanation of how they are using / interpreting this to do what they want regardless of constitutionality. Drug and guns laws are the first thing that comes to mind. How can the federal government dictate what you put into your body? They can't; plain and simple. But they say they CAN regulate "interstate commerce"; then they say since 'illegal' drugs are bought, sold, and transported over state lines, they are clear to "regulate" it. Same with firearms. They can't tell you how many you can have, what type of arms you can have, or nearly anything else without using this methodology. If you aren't already familiar, read up on Anslinger. The only way the fed could make drugs and/or machine guns (they were both taken care of in one fell swoop with this) was to impose a tax under the commerce clause; which a citizen had to pay to purchase a stamp that allowed them to have such items. Then, the federal government didn't make any stamps, and never sold any. Thus, drugs and machine guns are viewed as "illegal" now.
That is an underhanded, bullshit way of passing laws; and simply because it's been done before (ship has sailed) doesn't validate it, or make it ok to do it again.
And no, tort reform in itself wouldnt purchase insurance for the poor; but it certainly would help drive insurance costs down overall; this, plus with every health insurance company peddling custom-tailored plans in every state. With the average premium lowered, there wouldnt be nearly as many uninsured. Of course, that wouldn't happen overnight; but neither will the proposed plans. With a much smaller graphic of uninsured (a lot of which will be people who will *NEVER* buy insurance no matter what the cost) I think the problem could be dealt with in a more palatable way than the current proposals.
-
...State governments already do. In Cali, we can't drive a car unless we purchase insurance. It's the law. I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
Actually there is an opt-out, if you're willing to post a bond for the minimum insured amount, so the rich can opt-out but the impoverished nor even a majority of the employed can't
-
without the commerce clause washington would just ignore the constitution in those areas, like they always do.
-
I'm sure this has surfaced already in some text that I missed whilst reading all of that (damn you guys post like you're politicians or something), but I would like to return to the barter and trade system. In exchange for healthcare I will give you a bushel of fresh tomatoes and a supremely healthy milking goat. Screw this money thing, it's too annoying.
All that's stopping you is having to find a doctor who wants your tomatoes and goats. But you're still the sucker, because you have your pills but you doctor now has your milk goat. What you should really try to trade are your milk and tomatoes for a goat that squirts health care.
-
a goat that squirts health care.
That was in the original plan before the naysayers screwed it up.
-
Udderly unpossible.
-
Udderly unpossible.
Argh, seriously? So I gave up a bunch of freaking tomatoes for this useless thing?
-
Tomatoes come in bunches?
-
Ever hear of grape tomatoes?
-
Nope. I thought they only came in 'regular', cherry, and toe.
-
For the record, by 'bunch' I meant 'a lot' :P
-
Pear and plum too.
-
Tomatoes come in lots?
-
Tomatoes come in lots?
Usually when I'm doing my stand up act, yeah. :|
-
Tomatoes come in lots?
I would like to inform you all that ivan will be the fucking death of me. (Just for the record.) No matter what you all may assume, it wasn't my mother, nor was it xolik. The culprit is ivan.
-
A health care provider could be a government, the health care industry, a health care equipment company, an institution such as a hospital or medical laboratory.
_________________
I suck rancid dildos.com (http://www.zombo.com)
-
So whatever happened to personal responsibility?
-
So whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Went the way of the dodo.
-
I'm signing up for BobertCare.
Me: Bobert, I have a headache.
Bobert: You are so severe that they can't even boot from a hackjournal article we put the kibosh on an island or attach it to you on the outside, nothing looks to have a headache.
-
Went the way of the dodo.
more like the way of the buffalo...purposefully hunted to extinction.
-
more like the way of the buffalo...purposefully hunted to extinction.
Isn't that what happened to the Dodo? :?
-
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.
-
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...
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?
-
Only the top 2% of income earners in the US can afford luxury brands like Plague© Blankets, you elitist.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If it passes the Senate, I will be astounded.
-
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?
-
Either that, or they hate wetbacks.
/me was married to a Mexican, so he can say that word.
-
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.
-
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. :x
"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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Whoops, I thought the response was from someone different. :w:
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?
-
Whoops, I thought the response was from someone different. :w:
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?
-
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.
-
Here is an interesting article about what happens when the 'good intentioned' government helps 'poor' people. Clack here (http://mises.org/daily/3822). 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You probably don't even take time to remove your tophat and monacle.
-
Or bother to get down off of your seat made of piles of bags of cash, each with a big "$" on it.
-
I believe I have crossed some crucial line and have plunged headlong into insanity: I have decided, for some frighteningly perverse and self-destructive reason, to explain our socio-economic conundrum in terms of dieting.
Government is like the human body. When it is young, as ours was around, say, 1780, it tends to be fit. But with age it tends towards bloatation. It does not want to die, so therefore it consumes resources, but left to its own devices it will consume more than it needs to merely survive and thus begins to expand in an unseemly and repulsive way.
Now, there are still those who love it dearly, and understand that if its overindulgence continues it will eventually die, and not before making everyone who depends on it completely miserable. So everyone tries to come up with a diet plan.
First, there's the Socialist diet: Eat as much as you want, but work it off. The goal is an athletic government that has the strength, energy, will and resources to accomplish any task and make everyone happy. The problem with this diet is that... well, it's hard. Not the eating part -- that's easy. The work part. You see, government is inherently lazy, especially if it's starting out fat in the first place, and when you let it eat whatever it wants it becomes even more lazy. It will try to do some good work at first, and in the short term it might make a lot of people happy, but soon it will become overfed and begin to stagnate and, eventually, die.
The Anarchist diet is not so much a diet as forced starvation. No one seriously thinks it's a good idea, even if you do go out in a blaze of glory looking like Twiggy.
The Libertarian diet is different. It's the Atkins diet of socio-economic diet allegories. You see, by feeding government only certain things, and only enough to survive, you trick the government into being efficient, just like an all-protein diet tricks your liver into raging ketosis. On a libertarian diet, government would lose fat quickly and become spry and wiry, and accomplish amazing things for its weight. The problem, however, with the libertarian diet (aside from the ketosis-induced bad breath), is that it has to be adhered to rigirously without deviating. Just one bite of carbs will ruin everything and send the government spiraling back into obesity. And there is not one government in the history of mankind that did not want to take that one bite of carbs.
So, that leaves us with the try-everything diet. Eat a little less, excercise a little more, and don't have high expectations. Government will not wake up one day looking like a runway model. Ain't gonna happen.
Ok, now I will flip a coin. Heads, I click on the Post button. Tails, I don't.
-
Oh, look at that: heads.
-
Aaaaand, we've come full circle.
Here's a picture of our government.
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3752/picture008igu.jpg)
-
Maybe she's a rich entrepeneur who gives generously to charities and employs thousands of single mothers and who just HAPPENS to like scooters and cheeseburgers. You can't tell by looking.
-
Who DOESN'T like scooters and cheeseburgers?
But I wasn't commenting on her as a person (this time). I was commenting on her as a government body. Our government isn't any of those things you mentioned...except for a fan of scooters and cheeseburgers. Of course.
-
Of course.
-
try-everything diet.
But isn't this whole thread about not wanting to try something new? I don't like getting taxed as much as the next person and I strongly believe that the purse strings need to be tightened in many areas, governments often have a spend money and ask question later attitude and I'm not saying it's right. But ever since I was old enough to watch E.R I have always thought not having accessible medical care for people without the funds to pay for it was terrifying.
I'm also not suggesting that welfare should look after everyones needs, but on the matter of medical care I think it's important that funds are set up from the tax money to ensure treatment for people who can't pay.
I read the article *facepalm*
Let's imagine for a second that not all working class people are state sponging doll scrum who are trafficking heroin to your unsuspecting children. Most working class want jobs, I'm hearing on the news every day UK and American citizens who are desperate for a job, but during the down turn can't so much as get a job in walmart/ASDA. What are they supposed to do if they get ill?
Myself and a few other around here where made redundant lately, I've had a job since I was 15 years old. I appreciate that people's social expectations are different from one country to the next...but surely it would be reassuring to know that in a miserable time of your life when you have been fired from a job you deserved and worked hard at, that at least if you are ill, you wont have to worry about the fact that you couldn't pay the medical insurance last month because rent was due?
Edit: I keep reopening this thread typing a paragraph and then getting bored. But surely who you are as a person should have inflections on how you believe the government should be structured?
-
A big part of the problem is that in the interests of "affordable" health care, those who are "good risks" have to shoulder a disproportionately heavy load for those who are "bad risks." That is, part of the goal is to have it such that the person who pays the most doesn't pay more than twice what the person who pays the least pays. On paper, it sounds good, until you realize that the math completely doesn't work. A person who exercises, eats right, doesn't smoke and generally tries to lead a healthy lifestyle will, on average, have much, much, MUCH lower medical bills over his/her lifetime than will an obese smoker who doesn't even try to live well and can't be bothered to take care of his/her body.
In a very real sense, the government is taxing you for being responsible, ostensibly in the name of "fairness." But there's nothing fair about it.
-
I don't want health insurance period. it's too expensive, and i'm too healthy to need it. yes, I am playing the odds, but the odds are really good in my case.
-
I don't want health insurance period. it's too expensive, and i'm too healthy to need it. yes, I am playing the odds, but the odds are really good in my case.
What if you fall and land on a dirty soup spoon and catch AIDS? THEN WHAT?
-
Then he goes to emergency and gets the best healthcare in the world and then he gets billed for a gazillion dollars and then he declares bankruptcy and then we pay for his healthcare through increased medical and insurance fees.
-
Then he goes to emergency and gets the best healthcare in the world and then he gets billed for a gazillion dollars and then he declares bankruptcy and then we pay for his healthcare through increased medical and insurance fees. sues the maker of the soup spoon for not printing a warning about the possibility of catching AIDS by falling on it.
FTFY
-
...and the soup spoon manufacturer is either forced out of business, in which case society bears the burden of increased unemployment and reduced business tax revenues, or the soup spoon manufacturer is forced to raise prices, in which case we pay for his healthcare every time we buy a soup spoon.
Either way, society bears the burden, and the russian roulette hotshots who think they don't need catastrophic health insurance are costing all of us more than if they'd just buy some goddam insurance, even if it's subsidised.
-
Injured uninsured more likely to die in ER (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091116/ap_on_he_me/us_med_injured_and_uninsured;_ylt=AnHaxqeUmURKyBWpccL6X7ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFkcGtmMTZwBHBvcwMxNTMEc2VjA2FjY29yZGlvbl9oZWFsdGgEc2xrA3N0dWR5aW5qdXJlZA--)
-
See? By forcing you to buy health insurance under penalty of fines and imprisonment, the House Bill is SAVING LIVES!
-
Whelp, I'm convinced that under Obamacare there will be NO DEATHS at all of any kind.
And a Unicorn factory on every block.
-
And a Unicorn factory on every block.
Finally, one good thing that will come from the Obama administration.
-
Just wait until the unicorns start using their power for evil.
-
Yeah, I'm going to have to pay for a unicorn that I never wanted in the first place.
-
We are all already paying for the unicorns anyway. A public unicorn option would be more efficient.
-
Come to think of it, this is an american factory, government funded. The unicorns powers will never quite work right, so there are no worries. And since Barry O is a protectionist, he'll keep the tariffs high to keep well engineered unicorns from abroad out of our market.
-
Yes, let's not outsource our unicorns to India. That would be nice.
-
The nice thing about outsourcing unicorn production to India is that they will make them exactly as they're ordered. The horrible thing about outsourcing unicorn production to India is that they will make them exactly as they're ordered - ignoring all opportunities to add value along the way.
-
Yes, and where will all the unemployed American unicorn factory workers find jobs? The auto industry? Tech sector? Ha! Pure fantasy!
-
Put their biomass to good use--in a biofuel fermenter.
-
Appetizing!
-
SOYLENT GREEN is PEOPLE!!
-
uh, if got AIDS, why would I go to an ER at all? that makes no sense. I'd live for a couple years an then die, nothing anyone can do about it.
-
What the heck are you talking about. Magic Johnson has had AIDS for so long that people have forgotten he even has it. It's not exactly a death sentence anymore.
-
okay, so I don't exactly know my AIDS facts. in any case, I don see AIDS treatments getting so expensive that I couldn't possibly pay them.
-
Erm... Magic does not have AIDS. He is HIV positive. That's not the same as having AIDS.
And although life expectancy of people with HIV has been increased dramatically through drug treatments, there is still no cure for either HIV or AIDS.
-
In other words, for the purposes of this argument, if you get infected by HIV and have no medical coverage and no way of getting treated for free, you will probably get AIDS in a few months and then die a horrible death a few months after that. If you do have medical coverage, you'll be taking drugs for the rest of your life, but it will be a much, much longer one.
-
...with unicorns!
-
And let us not forget rainbows.
-
What if the factory produces HIV+ unicorns?
OH NOES
-
HIV + Unicr0ns = DISASTER!!
-
Yeah that's true I guess.
-
In other words, for the purposes of this argument, if you get infected by HIV and have no medical coverage and no way of getting treated for free, you will probably get AIDS in a few months and then die a horrible death a few months after that. If you do have medical coverage, you'll be taking drugs for the rest of your life, but it will be a much, much longer one.
and whose to say I can't actually, you know, pay for my own treatment?
yes it would be really expensive but considering it would be my life at stake I would probably be able to scrounge up the money. And hopefully somebody comes up with a cure before I'm dead.
and since, odds are, I wont get HIV, not having health insurance is probably the best way to go for me. but if Pelosi/Obama/Reed/Hillary force me to have it, well then I am getting ripped off.
-
I'm not doubting your abilities to pull in the cash, but just for your FYI you'll need a couple of grand per month for meds for the rest of your life, which at this point is expected to be around 25 years.
-
$600000 over the course of my entire life, assuming I don't die of something else first.
But the point is that my chances of getting the disease are hovering somewhere around zero, singe I don't regularly have sex, don't do drugs, and don't need drug transfusions.
-
You're forgetting Xolik's Soup Spoon of Doom.
-
in that case, i'm probably screwed.
-
And I don't even want to talk about the Fork of Fate.
-
Or the chopsticks of otherwise not specified here.
-
Or the Spork of Destiny.
-
And I don't even want to talk about the Fork of Fate.
what about the Fork of Horripilation?
-
The Knork of Inevitability.
-
I have one thing to post in this thread. 'Pre-existing condition' is a concept I want to see banished.
Not because I don't want to laugh when kids like Clear_Runway realize they do need insurance but it's too late. But for people like my sister who lapsed for two months on her insurance and when she renewed they said they wouldn't pay for anything related to her condition because she had manage two months on her own, even though she hadn't sought any sort of the treatment for those two months and was in agony. Assholes.
-
Wunderkind, insurance isn't for helping the ill. Insurance is for insuring that CEOs are (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/NBHZ.html) adequately compensated (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/0BHA.html).
-
I have one thing to post in this thread. 'Pre-existing condition' is a concept I want to see banished.
I fully agree with this.
-
Not because I don't want to laugh when kids like Clear_Runway realize they do need insurance but it's too late.
Look, its simple logic. the insurance company has to make a profit, i.e., there must be more money coming in as payments than going out to the insured. Which means that, on average, you will end up spending more on insurance than you would if you just fixed the problem yourself. This applies to all insurance, not just health care. And since I have no "pre-existing conditions", or for that matter health problems of any kind, I think it would be better not to have insurance and risk disaster than have insurance and hamstring my bank account.
-
Look, its simple logic. the insurance company has to make a profit, i.e., there must be more money coming in as payments than going out to the insured. Which means that, on average, you will end up spending more on insurance than you would if you just fixed the problem yourself. This applies to all insurance, not just health care. And since I have no "pre-existing conditions", or for that matter health problems of any kind, I think it would be better not to have insurance and risk disaster than have insurance and hamstring my bank account.
Well, as long as you can cough up, say, $15K for a broken leg or something, more power to you. Just remember to put away a few hundred dollars every month into an untouchable savings account, or you may be caught short.
Do you think your position might change if you start a family? Or buy a house? Because childbirth costs tons, and real estate assets are commonly liquidated by uninsured people in crises.
-
Look, its simple logic. the insurance company has to make a profit, i.e., there must be more money coming in as payments than going out to the insured. Which means that, on average, you will end up spending more on insurance than you would if you just fixed the problem yourself. This applies to all insurance, not just health care. And since I have no "pre-existing conditions", or for that matter health problems of any kind, I think it would be better not to have insurance and risk disaster than have insurance and hamstring my bank account.
I tend to agree with this; but only when I was young, HEALTHy, single, and childless. Once you marry or have children, it's not about you alone anymore; and a catastrophic incident to you with no insurance would seriously affect anyone dependent on you.
On the other hand; if no one is dependent on you and your catastrophic incident doesn't place undue burden on someone else (because you have all this ca$h and can pay the bill in full yourself); go for it.
-
Do you think your position might change if you start a family? Or buy a house? Because childbirth costs tons, and real estate assets are commonly liquidated by uninsured people in crises.
ha.. gmta
-
I didn't say it was for everyone. just me, for the foreseeable future.
-
I would think that Darwin Award winners are more often uninsured...