A health care question...

Negoba wrote: Since liberals don't believe in sin, "evil" isn't that big of an insult. Socialism, on the other hand was like Eden, sullied and lost, and when those who never understood Eden invoke it's name without knowledge, it is disturbing.   In a similar way, you see me throwing around a heavy insult for an idea you see as reasonable. If someone was talking about lynching, we'd both feel comfortable using the word evil. The idea that the society should be governed primarily by self-interest is extremely disturbing to me. I use words that reflect how strongly I feel.   You keep bringing this back to party line politics. Health care is way beyond that. And the Democratic position is WAY too conservative for me on this issue. Please don't lump me with them.

The main gist of my posts today have been more about decorum than health care as an issue.  That just happens to be the thread it occurred in.  I'm not trying to lump your position on the issue as something other than what it is, nor should you get into what I see as reasonable or characterize me as only about "self interest." 

By the way, I know plenty of liberals who believe in sin.   

Good one Exit!  

Though my exchange with Jay was not as heated as that suggests, which was the whole point of where I began. 

All I'm saying is make your case, on any topic, without calling out what you see as the "heart" of the person making an opposing opinion!  Because likely such charges are not accurate.  Avoid charging your opponents as evil/ignorant and you might find discussions are more  pleasant. 

^ whereas my post sought to do the exact opposite. By reminding everyone that Metallica was on PA, while in the middle of a political debate, I was fission for the big one. Kaboom!

It's sort of like when you're young and your Mom and Dad are arguing in the car and then your Dad all of a sudden realizes he has driven up on a traffic jam or a slow clueless driver and it pushes him right over the edge, ha.
Dang! not Metallica ..Daaang!

Edited by Easy Money - March 21 2010 at 14:49

Does anyone really even know what's in this health reform bill?  I read today -- perhaps I'm interpreting it incorrectly -- that health insurance will be mandatory for all, i.e., each person must purchase health insurance.  And that failure to have health insurance will result in a fine.  Is this true?  I'm not reading any right-wing publications, btw, maybe stupid, but not right-wing.   

^ if it is true, than it's fairly similar to most existing laws concerning car insurance.

thellama73 wrote: ^true, but if you don't want to pay for car insurance, you can choose not to buy a car. You can't choose not to have health.

Why would somebody choose that?

^ 'now there you go again' (Reagan) acting like our government is some sort of invading entity, in a Republic/Democracy the 'government' is you and me.

Edited by Easy Money - March 21 2010 at 15:22

Easy Money wrote: ^ 'now there you go again' (Reagan) acting like our government is some sort of invading entity, in a Republic/Democracy the 'government' is you and me.

So then no one has a reason to complain about anything regarding the government, huh?

While generally in favor of health care reform, if it is truly reform, i.e. a single payer system, I have to agree with some of our more conservative friends on the issue of whether we should have to pay for health care if we don't want it.  And here's why.  I live currently in Germany, where health insurance is mandatory.  However, I'm self-employed, which means I don't qualify for the government run health care system, which would be relatively cheap (16% of my income) and it would cover everything.  Because I'm self-employed, I can't take part in the wonderful government run health system (and I say this without a bit of sarcasm).  I wish I could join the system, but I'm still required to buy health insurance.  Private health insurance.    I have a pre-existing condition, two in fact (blood pressure and asthma).  That means I get to either pay around 500 Euro a month (well over 16% of my income) or I can pay about 200 Euro a month for coverage which excludes my pre-existing conditions (which basically means I have to piss my money away on something I can't use).  Mandatory health insurance without a single-payer system is wrong. 

Edited by The Doctor - March 21 2010 at 15:54

Epignosis wrote: Easy Money wrote: ^ if it is true, than it's fairly similar to most existing laws concerning car insurance. As I mentioned before, auto insurance is a law (and should be a law) because driving potentially endangers others.  If we run into another car, and it's our fault, we have insurance to pay for the damages and medical expenses of the other party.

True, but your car insurance doesn't prevent danger to others, it simply provides funds to pay if they are injured.  Following the same logic, if you are ill and become hospitalized and can't pay for it, the cost burden is generally borne by the rest of us in the form of either higher hospital charges for us to offset your costs, or by having your expenses paid for by government funds (Medicare, Medicaid, an indigent program, etc.).

IMHO this is really little different than other community expenses like police and fire departments.  Can you imagine a society where only those who houses burn down are asked to pay the cost of the fire department, or only those who have been victimized by a crime are asked to pay for the police?