| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
 Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:37 |
 thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do. 
I actually think health insurance is a crappy reality. I don't buy any because as I said it is a sucker bet. Why would I spend $600 a month to insure my family and myself? (Liability in
an automotive policy is another thing, because in that case, we are
essentially insuring other people (i.e., victims of our possible
accidents)).
Of course, true to our partisan politics in America, there's no room for a sensible moderate view. My take on it looks like this:
A. First, tort reform. One reason a doctor bill is so high is that their malpractice insurance is insane. How interesting that patients complain about health insurance without considering how much it costs a doctor to even see us! Remember, not only did the doctor have to go through a decade or so of expensive schooling, but he has to maintain the costs of his practice, which includes malpractice insurance. The doctor can't write prescriptions from a Motel 6 and with no license or insurance. So we need strict limitations on what and how much people can sue doctors for- this will bring malpractice insurance down, and in turn, bring down the doctor's visit.
B. This is something I've never heard anybody else say: Look at it this way. Republicans don't want a nationalized health care system, and I am with them on that. However, what do we entrust to local government that involves our very lives? We have the police and the fire department on the local payroll. Would it be feasible to build localized health care systems? We already have free clinics in many cities people with financial limitations can visit, and except for being slow (from my experience), they are effective.
C. All doctors offices should have candy for kids. No stupid ass stickers.
|
I agree with A and C 100% 
|
I edited B with an asterisk.  
|
|
|
 |
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:38 |
A Person wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.  
|
You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."
|
I think Teo's concerning is that medical care is not a business... and it should work for people's health more than for peoples pocket... I get the point of Rob, yeah, they shouldn't throw their money away... but how is that that the people who more need it is the people who recieves the refuse... I mean... We are young and healthy and that's enough to somewhat of insurance our life and stay away from doctor most of the times. But older people, especially women need protection and regular checks and is that people who don't recieve it... I think that's a sad contrast... don't you think...? |
I agree, but like Rob said, it isn't a very good idea as from the business point of view.
|
Yeah... I think that's the goal of this discussion... I know their career is expensive, but as far as I know, health care is a right of people and an obligation of the government. That, security and education should be free, really... in the perfect world... now... the fact that is not good for Business is what makes me sad, because the health of people is NOT a business...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:40 |
The T wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. In what kind of reality has this ever happened? What kind of science fiction (with little science and a lot of fiction) have you read? If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. So much Paranoia. Too much Fox News man.
|
Laugh all you want, but that's exactly what taxes are. You don't see it much, because almost everyone quietly pays their taxes without a fuss, but you have no choice in the matter. If you tried to resist, you WOULD go to jail.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:40 |
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
If you owned a grocery store, would you give your product away to everyone who asked for it? Don't you have a moral obligation? People need food to live!
|
There are avenues to get cheap food. And food is not that hard to come by anyway. Dying of hunger in the US is quite difficult. Health care is another monster, a thousands-of-dollars issue that can't be compared.
I guess the problem is you see health care as a business for profit. Most everywhere else, people don't. Of course, seen as a business for profit, your point is true. As morally repugnant as it is to me, heatth-care for profit is the reality and your logic applies. |
Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do.
I actually think health insurance is a crappy reality. I don't buy any because as I said it is a sucker bet. Why would I spend $600 a month to insure my family and myself? (Liability in
an automotive policy is another thing, because in that case, we are
essentially insuring other people (i.e., victims of our possible
accidents)).
Of course, true to our partisan politics in America, there's no room for a sensible moderate view. My take on it looks like this:
A. First, tort reform. One reason a doctor bill is so high is that their malpractice insurance is insane. How interesting that patients complain about health insurance without considering how much it costs a doctor to even see us! Remember, not only did the doctor have to go through a decade or so of expensive schooling, but he has to maintain the costs of his practice, which includes malpractice insurance. The doctor can't write prescriptions from a Motel 6 and with no license or insurance. So we need strict limitations on what and how much people can sue doctors for- this will bring malpractice insurance down, and in turn, bring down the doctor's visit.
B. This is something I've never heard anybody else say: Look at it this way. Republicans don't want a nationalized health care system, and I am with them on that. However, what do we entrust to local government that involves our very lives? We have the police and the fire department on the local payroll. Would it be feasible to build localized health care systems? We already have free clinics in many cities people with financial limitations can visit, and except for being slow (from my experience), they are effective.*
C. All doctors offices should have candy for kids. No stupid ass stickers.
*Edit: I actually do not think ALL health care could (or should) be run by the local government, but I think certain things could be covered in this manner (issues of life and limb, etc.), and most other things elective and at the expense of the patient. But that's details and I'm not smart enough to figure those out.
 |
I'm much more sympathetic with this view. What is evident is that you also think SOME kind of health care reform is necessary. If not what I and many suggest (government-run health care) at least some reform that brings down costs and makes it more affordable. I don't like the for-profit system, but seeing that that's so difficult to change, there have to be other ways. What we have now is rotten. America is the first power in the world and runs 37 in health care (?!?) With all its resources, this should be an issue America should always be in the first places. But the system is crooked. And the Insurance companies like it this way.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:42 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. In what kind of reality has this ever happened? What kind of science fiction (with little science and a lot of fiction) have you read? If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. So much Paranoia. Too much Fox News man.
|
Laugh all you want, but that's exactly what taxes are. You don't see it much, because almost everyone quietly pays their taxes without a fuss, but you have no choice in the matter. If you tried to resist, you WOULD go to jail.
|
In a society where we all have implicitly agreed to cooperate with each other (a social pact) we should be held liable if we think only of ourselves and don't pay taxes.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:44 |
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. In what kind of reality has this ever happened? What kind of science fiction (with little science and a lot of fiction) have you read? If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. So much Paranoia. Too much Fox News man.
|
Laugh all you want, but that's exactly what taxes are. You don't see it much, because almost everyone quietly pays their taxes without a fuss, but you have no choice in the matter. If you tried to resist, you WOULD go to jail.
|
In a society where we all have implicitly agreed to cooperate with each other (a social pact) we should be held liable if we think only of ourselves and don't pay taxes. |
To what limit? If the government decided to tax 100% of our income, would you maintain that it's our "social duty" to obey without question?
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:46 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Requiring health insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like requiring car insurance companies to cover already destroyed cars, or fire insurance to cover houses that are already on fire. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Well put.
|
Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all.
|
If you owned a grocery store, would you give your product away to everyone who asked for it? Don't you have a moral obligation? People need food to live!
|
There are avenues to get cheap food. And food is not that hard to come by anyway. Dying of hunger in the US is quite difficult. Health care is another monster, a thousands-of-dollars issue that can't be compared.
I guess the problem is you see health care as a business for profit. Most everywhere else, people don't. Of course, seen as a business for profit, your point is true. As morally repugnant as it is to me, heatth-care for profit is the reality and your logic applies. |
Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do.
I actually think health insurance is a crappy reality. I don't buy any because as I said it is a sucker bet. Why would I spend $600 a month to insure my family and myself? (Liability in
an automotive policy is another thing, because in that case, we are
essentially insuring other people (i.e., victims of our possible
accidents)).
Of course, true to our partisan politics in America, there's no room for a sensible moderate view. My take on it looks like this:
A. First, tort reform. One reason a doctor bill is so high is that their malpractice insurance is insane. How interesting that patients complain about health insurance without considering how much it costs a doctor to even see us! Remember, not only did the doctor have to go through a decade or so of expensive schooling, but he has to maintain the costs of his practice, which includes malpractice insurance. The doctor can't write prescriptions from a Motel 6 and with no license or insurance. So we need strict limitations on what and how much people can sue doctors for- this will bring malpractice insurance down, and in turn, bring down the doctor's visit.
B. This is something I've never heard anybody else say: Look at it this way. Republicans don't want a nationalized health care system, and I am with them on that. However, what do we entrust to local government that involves our very lives? We have the police and the fire department on the local payroll. Would it be feasible to build localized health care systems? We already have free clinics in many cities people with financial limitations can visit, and except for being slow (from my experience), they are effective.*
C. All doctors offices should have candy for kids. No stupid ass stickers.
*Edit: I actually do not think ALL health care could (or should) be run by the local government, but I think certain things could be covered in this manner (issues of life and limb, etc.), and most other things elective and at the expense of the patient. But that's details and I'm not smart enough to figure those out.
|
I'm much more sympathetic with this view. What is evident is that you also think SOME kind of health care reform is necessary. If not what I and many suggest (government-run health care) at least some reform that brings down costs and makes it more affordable. I don't like the for-profit system, but seeing that that's so difficult to change, there have to be other ways. What we have now is rotten. America is the first power in the world and runs 37 in health care (?!?) With all its resources, this should be an issue America should always be in the first places. But the system is crooked. And the Insurance companies like it this way. |
Our health care is excellent- it's access to affordable health care that is the kicker. And I have no problem with "for profit." Doctors should be compensated for their training, time, and hard work just like any other profession that is in demand. Take away any financial incentive that comes with going through all it takes to become a doctor, and what happens? There are very few doctors all of sudden, and you may be having your next door neighbor set your broken bone for you while you take his blood pressure.
Oh by the way, I've worked for health insurance years ago. From what I can tell, they don't like it this way. But like any business, they do what they must to survive and make a profit. If they stop making a profit, then they close shop and guess what? No health insurance for anyone. 
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:49 |
|
All I hear from those opposed to reform are arguments that back up that health insurance should be single payer. Everybody gets covered, the risk pool gets spread out over the whole country. Doctors only have to deal with one set of paperwork. Too much of our health insurance dollars are going to profits, administration, and CEO salaries. For insurance companies to be profitable they have to have more healthy people paying in than people using it. This model is unsustainable.
Edited by Slartibartfast - March 19 2010 at 12:50
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:49 |
Epignosis wrote:
Oh by the way, I've worked for health insurance years ago. From what I can tell, they don't like it this way. But like any business, they do what they must to survive and make a profit. If they stop making a profit, then they close shop and guess what? No health insurance for anyone.
|
But I think the point Teo and most of the other non-USians would make is that's what it desired - get health care out of the insurance paradigm.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:51 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. In what kind of reality has this ever happened? What kind of science fiction (with little science and a lot of fiction) have you read? If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. So much Paranoia. Too much Fox News man.
|
Laugh all you want, but that's exactly what taxes are. You don't see it much, because almost everyone quietly pays their taxes without a fuss, but you have no choice in the matter. If you tried to resist, you WOULD go to jail.
|
In a society where we all have implicitly agreed to cooperate with each other (a social pact) we should be held liable if we think only of ourselves and don't pay taxes. |
To what limit? If the government decided to tax 100% of our income, would you maintain that it's our "social duty" to obey without question?
|
Let's remember the government is made of people we elected and the same with congress. In theory, if they decide so in a way it's also our decision.
Of course the system is broken everywhere. When you only have two parties and elections are really a battle to decide who's richer and can out-spend its opponent, the persons we elect are not representing us but the ones who gave them the money to reach power.
But eventually, someone wants to make a change (at least a little one, maybe a mistaken one). And people are the first to oppose it. With little or no reason.
When a government reaches a point where they are taxing 100% as you said, rebellion is justified as it's obviously going against its people. But let's say the US was invaded by China or something and the government decided to tax 80% to battle the aggressors. Would you complain so much? Yet when it's JUST A LITTLE MORE and SPECIALLY RICH PEOPLE who is likely to be taxed to help others enjoy affordable heath care, you cry and complain....
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:53 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
All I hear from those opposed to reform are arguments that back up that health insurance should be single payer. Everybody gets covered, the risk pool gets spread out over the whole country. Doctors only have to deal with one set of paperwork. Too much of our health insurance dollars are going to profits, administration, and CEO salaries. For insurance companies to be profitable they have to have more healthy people paying in than people using it. This model is unsustainable.
|
It would also help of course if people were healthier here and didn't eat so much crap. Obesity and diabetes and all food-related problems are not exactly helping keep costs down.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:54 |
Padraic wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Oh by the way, I've worked for health insurance years ago. From what I can tell, they don't like it this way. But like any business, they do what they must to survive and make a profit. If they stop making a profit, then they close shop and guess what? No health insurance for anyone.
|
But I think the point Teo and most of the other non-USians would make is that's what it desired - get health care out of the insurance paradigm.
|
Which I tend to agree with. The point is very fine: Even if you say "health care is a right," that does not equal, "health insurance is a right."
|
|
|
|
Pekka
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 03 2006
Location: Espoo, Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 6442
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:54 |
Just out of curiosity, in the US approximately how big a percent of let's say a 2000 dollar monthly paycheck is taken away by the gunmen?
We've got a health care system funded by taxes and so is our schooling system all the way to med schools, and I've never thought I'm paying too much taxes. Or heard anybody else complain. Just in the recent past I've come to fully realize how lucky we are.
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:54 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. In what kind of reality has this ever happened? What kind of science fiction (with little science and a lot of fiction) have you read? If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. So much Paranoia. Too much Fox News man.
|
Laugh all you want, but that's exactly what taxes are. You don't see it much, because almost everyone quietly pays their taxes without a fuss, but you have no choice in the matter. If you tried to resist, you WOULD go to jail.
|
In a society where we all have implicitly agreed to cooperate with each other (a social pact) we should be held liable if we think only of ourselves and don't pay taxes. |
To what limit? If the government decided to tax 100% of our income, would you maintain that it's our "social duty" to obey without question?
|
I'd obey because the solution is easy - I wouldn't work. 
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:54 |
Being that I'm going to be poor for the forseeable future, I'm trying to get resigned to not have health care, unless my parent's insist on it (not sure I'd let them pay it).
All I know is a visit to the ICU for a day or so will make me completely bankrupt.
I am really, really starting to get pissed at this country. No wonder everyone here works themselves to death, is miserable, has to f**k anyone just to feel anything, and would sooner kill a man than have their retirement cash take a hit if you can get sick or sued at any moment and lose all your savings. Wonderful.
I was reading The Economist today in the sh*tter (where it belongs).lThat's an expensive rag for rich people who push money around to make money and pay tens of thousands of dollars to have an ad of them making fake smiles to sell their expensive services to make more goddamn money. Maybe I'll be rich one day, and by then I'll be old enough to f**k over younger generations to keep my cash (thanks a bunch Boomers!). Then I won't care. Huzzah greed (it always comes back to that).
I have a solution: give me basic health care because I am a citizen and a god damn human being who expects a government to actually serve its citizens. Making lattes for rich f**ks who can afford a $5 drink 3 times a day every day may not be a great job, but I'll take that and being a poor musician and idealist over dealing with the machine.
Maybe I'll feel different in a few years, again.
Edited by stonebeard - March 19 2010 at 12:56
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:55 |
thellama73 wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
|
I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:57 |
Pekka wrote:
Just out of curiosity, in the US approximately how big a percent of let's say a 2000 dollar monthly paycheck is taken away by the gunmen? |
It's tough to answer because there's taxes at the federal, state, and local level. A $24000/year salary puts you in the 15% federal income bracket.
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:58 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Ok so where is the affordable heath care that people with no insurance can go to? Because there should be alternatives. It's only "insurance" after all. Therefore, people could opt out and go get their own heath care. Of course, if you have thousands of dollars. |
I don't have too much more to say about this, but one final point:
You clearly think that health care is a right that everyone should have free (or at least very cheap) access too. That's fine, but the money has to come from somewhere. I'm going to assume that you think doctors deserve to be paid for their work, since they spend upwards of $100,000 and eight years of their life in med school. So who is going to pay the doctors? If you force the insurance companies to do it without collecting high premiums, they will quickly quit and find more profitable industries in which to work. So the only other option is government run health care.
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
Add to that the historically proven incompetence and inefficiency of the federal government, and I think you can see why I think it's a bad idea.
|
I have no problem with this. Whether you agree or not, there is a cost to society, and a responsibility on the part of each member of society to contribute to that society. Those who get the most benefits from society, (i.e. the rich, corporations) should be required to contribute the most to society. And let's face it, without an existing social structure, it would be well nigh impossible to accumulate any wealth. Only the existence of a social structure allows people to become wealthy. You may not agree on the amount or the way government spends its money, but taxation is necessary and a certain amount of wealth redistribution is not only fair, it is also necessary to maintain the social structure. Unless you'd prefer to have for-profit companies run every aspect of our society and provide the needed social structure on the backs of the poor and down-trodden. Serfdom anyone?
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:58 |
Padraic wrote:
Pekka wrote:
Just out of curiosity, in the US approximately how big a percent of let's say a 2000 dollar monthly paycheck is taken away by the gunmen? |
It's tough to answer because there's taxes at the federal, state, and local level. A $24000/year salary puts you in the 15% federal income bracket.
|
And then you've got about twelve dozen hundred other variables. 
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
A health care question...
