General discussions - A health care question...

Print Page | Close Window

A health care question...

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=65909
Printed Date: November 28 2024 at 22:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: A health care question...

Posted By: The T
Subject: A health care question...
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 11:57

Today my mother, a 60 year old woman of normal size and weight, was denied insurance by another insurance company. In the letter explaining the decision, they said it was because she has gastritis and some other relatively minor stomach conditions.

I know my mother can always spend 400$ in a ticket to my country and be checked there by doctors that are less interested in money. That's not my point. My question is, is this the "perfect" health care system that you republicans, libertarians and tea-parti-ers so strongly defend? Is this what the MOST PROSPER NATION IN THE WORLD should have whereas, in ANY OTHER COUNTRY nobody would've denied my mother coverage?

Can you explain me why is this system worth defending? I'm stupid. So is pretty much everyone who cries for health care reform. You know the truth. Please, explain it to me as if I was 5-year old. Because I can't see for the love of any damn god what is so great about this system.

-------------

Replies:

Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:04

Shame to heard that Teo... my mother is a little older and she is covered by insurance here in Guatemala, luckily she will never need it, but that's not the case... I think the older people is the most to need that kind of protection... It have happened several times in I guess... so sorry man... that's injustice, but I don't know the system as I live in a little tinny problematic country... I hope you can solve the problem...

-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:07

The health insurance company is a private business. They want a profit.

Suppose you started a grocery store. Should the government force you to give away your food to people who couldn't pay you for it, just because they needed it?

Suppose people just decided it wasn't worth it to start or continue operating health insurance companies and so these companies stopped existing, partly because the government made them accept everyone.

At any rate, I actually refuse health insurance because it is, in essence, a sucker bet.

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:08

As far as I know, no one is claiming the current system is perfect or even that good. Us Republicans, Tea Partiers and Libertarians believe that you could drastically improve service by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and by eliminating givernment mandates that require insurance companies to cover superfluous things like Viagra. In that way, you could get cheap health insurance that would only provde catastrophic care (which is all most people want.) Now, you can't get it, because of regulations.

As far as preexisting conditions go, I don't think you get the idea of insurance. The idea is you buy insurance to protect you in the unlikely event of something bad happening. That's how they make their money. If everyone who has insurance also undergoes costly medical proceedures, then the insurance companies would go out of business. They make money off the healthy people to pay for the sick people. 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.

I am sorry to hear about your mother, but the regulations now being talked about will raise premiums (a lot) and eventually ( I suspect) drive private health insurance companies out of business.

-------------

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:10

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.

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:10

Nobody has answered why this would be covered in other countries and not in here. Maybe because in the US profits are all that counts?

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:11

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

-------------

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:13

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

If you owned a grocery store, would your give you product away to everyone who asked for it? Don't you have a moral obligation? People need food to live!

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:14

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:17

Epignosis wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

If you owned a grocery store, would you give you 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.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:19

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."

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.

-------------

Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:23

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

That appears to be the problem of health care based on insurence; it does regard people as commodities, like cars. Which I think is pretty sad.

I'm not from the US and dont fully understand your healthcare system, but to us who have 'nasty evil communist' socialised health care, your system does seem abhorant. I'm sure it's not that simple, but anyway, I'm sorry to hear of your mothers predicament, and know that under our system - which I acknowlegde is not perfect - she would be looked after, free at point of care.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:24

As has been noted, the insurance companies, like business generally, are in it for profit. Universal, socialized health care is what is needed. Everyone should have access.

I was rushed in an ambulance to hospital the other day -- no hassles, no extra cost to me. I didn't have my care card on me, but I phoned it in the next day. It's nice not to have to deal with an insurance company -- I still pay premiums but it hardly covers costs. They're being more thorough than needed, I think with tests which is costly for taxpayers generally, Mind you, we pay a lot of taxes.

-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:26

Blacksword wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

Like in many other countries that are far poorer than the US.

My problem is I still can't adapt to the idea that where I have been living for the past 5 years individualism and money are the ultimate truth. That "affordable health care for everybody" crazyness they have in most other countries that are rich (even if the system is privately run) would be in total contradiction with the American way of seeing and doing things... It's my fault after all.

-------------

Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:26

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

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...?

-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:28

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.

-------------

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:32

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

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!

Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do. Wink

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.

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dunce-cap.jpg

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:34

jampa17 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."

I agree, but like Rob said, it isn't a very good idea as from the business point of view.

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:35

Epignosis wrote:

Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do. Wink

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% Smile

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:37

thellama73 wrote:

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. For some strange reason, even in some poorer countries they have something resembling that. That's fine, but the money has to come from somewhere. TAXES 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. The whole system, as I said, is wrong. People study medicine to get rich, not to save people. Damn, even CUBA, CUBA is more humane than this. So who is going to pay the doctors? TAXES (yes, less money in your -and mine -pocket)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. Please, that would be what we ask for.

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. 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.)Again, one word: TAXES. And LESS ARMY SPENDING. And a few more things....

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.Funny, in all government-run system nobody's trying to push for reform and turn it into a system like the US'..... quite funny...

-------------

Posted By: Epignosis
Date 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. Wink

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% Smile

I edited B with an asterisk. LOL

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:38

A Person wrote:

jampa17 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

You're missing the point. It's insurance. It's not "Free Money Inc."

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.

Posted By: thellama73
Date 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.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:40

Epignosis wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

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!

Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do. Wink

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.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:42

thellama73 wrote:

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.

-------------

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:44

The T wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

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?

-------------

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:46

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Well put.

Very nice to compare human beings to cars. Oh hell, we're all stuff after all. Dead

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!

Actually, you make assumptions about my view based on my conservatism. I actually hold a different opinion than you think I do. Wink

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. Shocked

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date 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.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: Padraic
Date 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. Shocked

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.

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:51

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

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....

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date 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.

-------------

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:54

Padraic wrote:

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."

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Pekka
Date 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.

-------------
http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=42652" rel="nofollow - It's on PA!

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:54

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

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. Tongue

Posted By: stonebeard
Date 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.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: Negoba
Date 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.

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:56

Padraic wrote:

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.

Exactly. And that's when maybe I'm quite utopian here, since it would entail changing a whole country's view of things... Health care should not be a business for profit. It should be a service. Paid, of course. I mean, none is complaining of the poor standard of living of British doctors, is anyone? And from what I've heard, people STILL go to health-school all over Europe.... It's not that they're forcing lawyers to become doctors with guns on their heads.... Wink

-------------

Posted By: Padraic
Date 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.

Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:58

thellama73 wrote:

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?

Posted By: Epignosis
Date 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. Wacko

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:00

Epignosis wrote:

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. Wacko

Could easily send me off on a different rant....another topic for another time and place

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:06

Negoba wrote:

I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.

-------------

Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:07

The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.

Insurance is not a viable model for paying for modern health care. Period. An insurance model assumes that most people don't need care except in emergencies (like Rob said, catastrophic). In fact, everyone needs some regular medical care. And the ones who need the most aren't the ones who work (elderly, children, the sick). So we HAVE to take money from those who work and use it to provide health care to those who don't work. It's just what institution does the distributing of the money.

Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.

We already have public systems in place for the elderly and (and many children and mothers). Sick adults, whether they have chronic illness or even a temporary injury, are the ones in limbo. Right now, there are ALOT of able-bodied Americans out of work and without insurance. They would pick up a job if there was one, but there isn't. There have been massive layoffs over the last 18 months. Everyone is looking.

-------------
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.

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:08

thellama73 wrote:

Negoba wrote:

I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.

Man, it's because, outside of a Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh opiate dream, I don't know where you could have read that men with guns force money off people who have earned it.... Please READ about other places. The world is much bigger than just this country and one tv channel!

-------------

Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:10

thellama73 wrote:

Negoba wrote:

I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.

What you said is actually quite evil. It's beyond uncivil. It is truly evil.

-------------
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.

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:12

The T wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Negoba wrote:

I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.

Because that's what taxes are! I don't know how anyone can not understand that. One more time: income tax is money collected by force (if necessary) from citizens based on how much they earn.

-------------

Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:12

Negoba wrote:

The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.

Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.

That reminds me of a joke. Three transplant specialists from three countries (France, England and the U.S.) are discussing the success of recent transplants in their respective countries. The doctor from England says "In my country, we took the heart from one man, put it in another man, and the next day the transplantee was out looking for work." The doctor from France says "That's nothing, in my country we took a lung from one man, put it in another man, and the next day they were both out looking for work." The doctor from the US says "That's nothing. In my country we took an a**hole out of Texas put him in Washington, and the next day everybody was out looking for work."

Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:17

The Doctor wrote:

Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.

Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

That's a good joke, but why'd you change it from New York to Texas? Wink

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:20

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Negoba wrote:

I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.

Because that's what taxes are! I don't know how anyone can not understand that. One more time: income tax is money collected by force (if necessary) from citizens based on how much they earn.

ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?

Obviously the discussion is useless. Go save more money under your mattress man. Hope it serves you well one day where you're damned sick and nobody lifts a finger to even help you count your goddamn hard-earned money that you so heroically managed to keep off the government's hands....

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:21

Epignosis wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.

Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

That's a good joke, but why'd you change it from New York to Texas? Wink

Who was it originally created for? Tongue

-------------

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:22

The T wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

The Doctor wrote:

Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.

Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

That's a good joke, but why'd you change it from New York to Texas? Wink

Who was it originally created for? Tongue

I have no idea. Damn funny either way though. LOL

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:22

I have no idea how the US health system works, so I'll only address one minor issue that hasn't been touched, yet. From what I hear, the costs of health care in the US are extraordinarily high, in a manner that can not be rationally explained. I mean, the full cost of a particular heart surgery that can be done in the top-of-the-line Paris hospital where my girlfriend works is around 7000 euros; the full cost of the exact same surgery done in the States is 150000 dollars. WTF? It's a mystery, none of the possible explanations I've heard can fully cover this difference (which is not a difference in quality, though). So if this ratio applies to all or most of the health care provided in the US, I'm not surprised it all by the situation looking quite extreme for those without a lot of money.

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:24

This is what I've been thinking about lately. It's one thing to claim we should go single-payer, but our country has been operating in the insurance paradigm for so long that it's a highly non-trivial task to re-make the entire method by which health care is delivered. I'm not using this to argue against going that route, merely that single-payer national health systems in Europe and elsewhere were set up long ago when there wasn't a competing massive infrastructure to tear down and remake.

Perhaps that's why we have the current reform bill that is hated by the far left and far right alike (for different reasons, of course).

Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:47

Padraic wrote:

Exactly. There are massive industries that would be destroyed by an effective health care system. Some of those are traditionally Republican interests and some Democrat. But even that is regional. Doctors are as guilty as any of the other players, but there are many.

-------------
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.

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 15:46

Negoba wrote:

What you said is actually quite evil. It's beyond uncivil. It is truly evil.

And then there's civilized evil:

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 15:53

Well played sir.

-------------
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.

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 17:26

It's uncanny how the fiscal cost of health care in the US invariably results in a thread where many of the posters strike we outsiders as resembling the troubled offspring of King Canute and Ayn Rand.

I do admit that I have very little knowledge of how the american system functions but in Australia BOTH the public AND private health systems are government owned. The public version ensures free access to hospital treatment and subsidised access to visits to your Doctor. This is paid for by a 1.5 tax levy on all taxpayers plus an extra 1% on top for high income earners.(>AU$70k per annum)

The private system might be similar to the US as it is funded by private health insurance organisations (the largest of which is government owned) but by way of contrast, these operate under the regulations applicable to registered private health funds e.g. private medical insurance premiums attract a government rebate of circa 35% (dependant on age)

Although it's certainly far from perfect, the private and public sectors appear to work quite well together and like the UK, the former relieves much of the strain on resources from the latter. Australia is of course not immune to the tides of change (like Canute) and there is an ongoing and systematic pressure being applied to its citizens to encourage same to take out private health and employment insurance (by way of fiscal incentives e.g. tax sweeteners)

Let's face it, the State is steadily shrinking and will ultimately disappear in the west, leaving us with the prospect of having to privately fund our employment insurance and subsequent future dotage. For the sake of clarity, I am not an advocate of free handouts, but having paid income tax all my working life, there are many of us who feel with some justification that we are entitled to unemployment benefits and a state pension. (but then I might be either old fashioned or just a King Canute wannabe ?)

So to sum up, the sorry state of affairs you currently have in the US is simply where the rest of us are heading in the years to come. (if our political leaders continue to be in thrall of the sovereignty of 'market forces')
Forgive the 'sick' humour, but can't the rest of the 1st world learn from your mistakes and put into practice 'prevention is better than cure' ?

-------------

Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:13

The T wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

Negoba wrote:

I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.

Because that's what taxes are! I don't know how anyone can not understand that. One more time: income tax is money collected by force (if necessary) from citizens based on how much they earn.

ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?

You were tough Teo but it's painfully true... That's the teaching of the individualism and selfishness of the US system... if you got money, you are covered, if you don't, well, see what you can get because we need you to work (no matter you have 80 years old) and we need to take money away from you to have the doctors happy...

It's tough because, every country is trying to get an American system, which is good, but with all it's flaws... which are many and that can't be addapted to different countries, in which selfishness is not the main idea....

-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:16

The T wrote:

ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?

I think it's interesting that you think me selfish, when I'm not the one who wants to confiscate other people's property and distribute it as I see fit. Wink

It is a very easy thing to be generous with other people's money. I want people to be generous with their own money.

-------------

Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:21

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?

I think it's interesting that you think me selfish, when I'm not the one who wants to confiscate other people's property and distribute it as I see fit. Wink

It is a very easy thing to be generous with other people's money. I want people to be generous with their own money.

jajaaja... so you think this is socialism... it's really funny... so tell us, please, what is the solution for people who are older and don't have money? or children that are too young to work and they have no covering and their parents are poor or unemployed? please, tell me, if your answer is accurate... there will be no injustice anymore in the world...

-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:29

jampa17 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?

I think it's interesting that you think me selfish, when I'm not the one who wants to confiscate other people's property and distribute it as I see fit. Wink

It is a very easy thing to be generous with other people's money. I want people to be generous with their own money.

Oh I think you missed the point of his posts. He doesn't care if people are sick and can't get the care they require as long as the wealthy get to keep all of "their" money.

-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:29

jampa17 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?

I think it's interesting that you think me selfish, when I'm not the one who wants to confiscate other people's property and distribute it as I see fit. Wink

It is a very easy thing to be generous with other people's money. I want people to be generous with their own money.

You (Llama73) probably love charity... where you sit on your high horse and give some crumbs to those in need... instead of making things easier for them to get up on their own. Usually, right-wingers say that too much government assistance does actually the opposite, "create a nation of lazy people", but when your free-market dream of a world owned by corporations and dog-eats-dog is a reality, there is no way to go up in the ladder by your own because it's just impossible to even enter this market when education is also extremely difficult to access and when you HAVE to keep working low-wage jobs only to get some kind of health care.....

Yes, charity, the answer to the world problems... But it leaves more money in your pocket anyway! And that's what we want!

-------------

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:33

jampa17 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?

I think it's interesting that you think me selfish, when I'm not the one who wants to confiscate other people's property and distribute it as I see fit. Wink

It is a very easy thing to be generous with other people's money. I want people to be generous with their own money.

Well, since you asked: It's your responsibility to earn money. No one owes it to you. If you're old and you haven't saved, then I hope you have at least been nice to people. Back in the day, before social security, most old people moved in with their kids. I think that's a good thing. Now, the family structure is falling apart and I think that is the cause of many evils in the world. Additionally, America has an astounding amount of private charity. If people were not taxed through the noses, it would be even more astounding. I think you'll find that we're a pretty compassionate people on an individual level.
The purpose of friends, family and community is to help each other through hard times. Now that the government provides everything, there's less incentive for people to get to know each other and play nice. That's why we've become so isolated and antisocial.
The main point where we disagree is that you should money is a right, and I think it has to be earned. There are obviously cases where it's impossible for someone to earn a living for reasons beyond their control, and it's very sad, but we Americans have always been great about helping these people out of the kindness of our hearts and not because Uncle Sam forces us to.

-------------

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:36

Raff wrote:

Of course he doesn't care if people are sick... If they are, it's their fault - or so another one of his ilk wrote on a forum I used to visit. Yes, it was my mom's fault if she got cancer - a woman who never smoked, never drank, ate very little, and led a generally sensible life. When I read that post, I literally saw red - if I had had that guy before me, I would've strangled him with my bare hands. Calling this stance evil is an understatement.

I never said people getting sick is their own fault, nor do I hold that view. Please don't misquote me and fall into a straw man fallacy.

-------------

Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:42

In a free democratic society like we have in the US, the government is us. We are the government, we are a self-governing nation. The government is not the enemy, it is us, It is made up of people we freely elected. The laws we have were arrived at democratically as well, nobody forced anything on us, we decided our own laws and leaders.

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:46

Easy Money wrote:

In a free democratic society like we have in the US, the government is us. We are the government, we are a self-governing nation. The government is not the enemy, it is us, It is made up of people we freely elected. The laws we have were arrived at democratically as well, nobody forced anything on us, we decided our own laws and leaders.

This is true, but we are not now, nor have we ever been a true democracy. The founding fathers were against democracy because it results in a tyranny of the majority, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%. That's why we have the constitution, to prevent certain bad things from happening.

Incidentally, your point might just as well have been directed at The T, since he is the one who started this thread to complain about the current laws that "we decided."

-------------

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:47

Thank you for pointing that out. Whenever I hear people in this country trashing government I have to think "What the hell are you thinking?" Are we a government of by and for the people or not? Are we not capable of forming a more perfect union?

I believe health care should be a right in this country in this day and age. The only reason it wasn't was likely due to health care being non existent or blood lettings and other practices we regard barbaric. I also think that with that right should also come some responsibilities. To penalize or privilege people based on their ability to pay is ridiculous and I believe we as a society should recognize the need to take care of one another. It makes us a better people.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:47

thellama73 wrote:

jampa17 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

The T wrote:

ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?

I think it's interesting that you think me selfish, when I'm not the one who wants to confiscate other people's property and distribute it as I see fit. Wink

It is a very easy thing to be generous with other people's money. I want people to be generous with their own money.

Well, since you asked: It's your responsibility to earn money. No one owes it to you. If you're old and you haven't saved, then I hope you have at least been nice to people. Back in the day, before social security, most old people moved in with their kids. I think that's a good thing. Now, the family structure is falling apart and I think that is the cause of many evils in the world. Additionally, America has an astounding amount of private charity. If people were not taxed through the noses, it would be even more astounding. I think you'll find that we're a pretty compassionate people on an individual level.
The purpose of friends, family and community is to help each other through hard times. Now that the government provides everything, there's less incentive for people to get to know each other and play nice. That's why we've become so isolated and antisocial.
The main point where we disagree is that you should money is a right, and I think it has to be earned. There are obviously cases where it's impossible for someone to earn a living for reasons beyond their control, and it's very sad, but we Americans have always been great about helping these people out of the kindness of our hearts and not because Uncle Sam forces us to.

I hardly see you doing that if you think that this is a perfect world in which everybody will succeed to save money... you know there's people who is unemployed because many reasons, and there's people who loose it all in catastrophies or just bad luck... you can't demand THEM to save if they don't have the chance... especially in a society as this, in which all that matters is that I can pass you over and have personal success while people is left broke. That's the system and you are expecting to that work...? I'm sure you won't be able or willing to help any unlucky guy who loosed it all... don't know man... but your arguments are really sad and somewhat evil... again you are just seeing your own nose... and I never said that somebody has to force you to do anything... it's just that is not as that simple... Thumbs Down

-------------
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.

Posted By: Qboyy007
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:48

Negoba wrote:

I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.

I always laugh when people say this to others as if it's an insult. People against Universal Healthcare are "sorry excuses for human beings", but the uneducated, moronic, idiots of the world who work at Mc.Donalds and collect welfare are model citizens. Go to school, get a decent job, don't have 50 children out of wedlock, and try and make something out of your f**king worthless life.

Inb4: Stop watching Limbaugh and Beck filthy republican!

-------------
Hay Budday

Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:53

"On the surface, the Parasite expects the doctor to heal them for free, the farmer to feed them out of charity. How little they differ from the pervert who prowls the streets, looking for a victim he can ravish for his grotesque amusement." Andrew Ryan.

Seriously, some of you sound like caricatures.

Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:56

thellama73 wrote:

This is true, but we are not now, nor have we ever been a true democracy. The founding fathers were against democracy because it results in a tyranny of the majority, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%. That's why we have the constitution, to prevent certain bad things from happening.Incidentally, your point might just as well have been directed at The T, since he is the one who started this thread to complain about the current laws that "we decided."

Call it what you want, republic or democracy, it's still us, we decide, we vote for our leaders and our laws, the government is you and me and all who vote. As for T's OP, looks like the American people have changed their mind, we had the old system and now we are switching to something else.

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 18:57

By the way, I just want to say... I love you guys. Heart

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:09

^ love you too.. now:

thellama73 wrote:

The purpose of friends, family and community is to help each other through hard times. Now that the government provides everything, there's less incentive for people to get to know each other and play nice. That's why we've become so isolated and antisocial.

And what of the people - who you evidently haven't met yet - whose families have rejected them (yes it does happen).. it sounds as if you simply haven't been exposed to enough different realities: "The purpose of friends, family and community is to help each other through hard times". I agree in principle, but principles aren't good enough, they aren't real. That's coming from a place of ideas - which is to say idealism - but ideas don't exist, people do. What conservatives are really saying is "We don't think people should be helped in more than the most basic way-- their church, family and community should do it", which is a perfectly fine philosophy.

What progressives are saying is "Bullsh*t, that's not reality and does not help those who don't have a strong family, who don't go to church (surprise surprise), and whose "community" cannot help.

Just be honest: you don't want to help those who can't help themselves. Fine. But the Dems are in charge and, yes, they're going to force an agenda they believe is necessary into the American system. It's called political courage. Screw whether or not it will 'hurt' the Dems or Obama.. is that really important? Isn't what helps to improve a failing system what's important, and not the chances of being re-elected? Of course it is.

The underlying issue here, which I've heard no one discuss on the news shows, is this: The real fear of Republicans is not just a new Health Care system (which I do believe, to an extent, they oppose for real philosophical reasons), it's Barrack Obama being successful and his changes being increasingly appreciated as the years and decades pass. They don't like him or his point of view.

Heck you should be happy when Health Care passes, it means the Dems will be responsible and voted out and Obama only a 1-termer.

And of course another looming issue is Social Security which I believe should be changed, at least the age it kicks-in should be pushed back to 70 or 75, and that's just for starters

Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:19

Atavachron wrote:

^ love you too.. now:

I agree with almost everything you said. Two minor clarifications:

1) "you don't want to help those who can't help themselves." should read "you don't want others to be forced to help those who can't help themselves."

2) While it's true I don't like Obama or his ideas, I would much rather him be remembered as a great president having done nothing than for him to continue on his current path and be voted out next term. This is because I care about what I believe to be good for my country more than I care about individual politicians and their reputations.

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:25

Cool

Posted By: Qboyy007
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:32

Atavachron wrote:

^ love you too.. now:

I must say, I applaud your practicality.

-------------
Hay Budday

Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:47

It's all well an good to say that private citizens should pick up the slack of their own free will and on their own terms but the fact is that they aren't and there's a big mess left lying to be taken care of. Which means an authority of some kind has to force the issue.

I agree that it would be done more efficiently, with better elegance, and for the better good of society if the task was completed by the people independently. BUT IT ISN'T. When individuals, instead of balancing personal needs and public needs, instead choose a course that harms society, the government, with all it's bumbling has to step in. And that's exactly what we have now.

And my statement about evil was regarding the idea that personal ownership of property (or worse the artifice called "money") has some kind of trump card over the common good. That idea is inherently evil. And yes if you believe it, you are upholding an inherently selfish ideal.

-------------
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.

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:53

There's a lot I could say, but increasingly my attitude is "what's the point?"

And Jay, I'm sorry, but I do put my family's interests above (the almost always ill-defined) "common good". If that makes me evil, well, I'm just an anonymous person on a message board, and I've been called worse.

Injecting this sort of language into the discourse is just such a turn-off for me. Sorry, had to say it.

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 19:56

Negoba wrote:

if I wasn't married... I'd be all over you like stink on sh*t.

at this point... I could give a sh*t. America gets what it deserves on this.... if they really think that private industry and it's greed is less to fear than an imperfect government attempting to correct a social ill (something in that private industry.. ie.. the current healthcare system are far more secondary to profit )

then by all means.. take it... you'll pay.. trust me.. you'll pay when you get old enough to have responsibiliies.. a family.. and real bills... and a system that doesn't give a sh*t about you.. only that YOU can pay.

and pay you will hahhah

*sound of thunder with evil laughter*

as I posted in Brian's thread.. the problem isn't the government.. it's the people here. It's fears are based in some warped sense of reality.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 20:02

KoS wrote:

On the surface, the Parasite expects the doctor to heal them for free, the farmer to feed them out of charity. How little they differ from the pervert who prowls the streets, looking for a victim he can ravish for his grotesque amusement." Andrew Ryan.

The biggest parasite of all is the one who makes himself rich off of our infrastructure and then turns around and says he doesn't want to pay his fair share (taxes) to support it.

Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 20:37

Woah! Woah! Libertarians? Defend? I have pretty Libertarian views and I barely support anything in this country.

Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 21:06

Padraic wrote:

There's a lot I could say, but increasingly my attitude is "what's the point?"

And Jay, I'm sorry, but I do put my family's interests above (the almost always ill-defined) "common good". If that makes me evil, well, I'm just an anonymous person on a message board, and I've been called worse.

Injecting this sort of language into the discourse is just such a turn-off for me. Sorry, had to say it.

The first hyperbole from llama, and the attempt to defend it, was what prompted the EVIL comment.

Of course, in adult reality, it ends up coming to a matter of degree. How much should I be taxed for things like roads or whatever is decided that taxes should go for? Pretty much everyone agrees there has to be some minimums for these things (again roads) and then it just becomes how much.

And we all make evil and selfish choices, and sometimes we things easily named evil because there is no reasonable alternative. I've made plenty of them.

A friend of mine owns a small business. His kids go to the same private school mine do. His oldest is graduating and he chose to move to get him into a better public school. The members of that school district think it's dishonest, and yet one of the reasons he's doing it is because "I just couldn't send my kids to another private school when my guys haven't got a raise in 2 years." He's sending his son to a LESS resourced, rougher school to be able to give raises, and yet he's seen as cheating. His option? Send his son to the STL public schools and the land of knives and guns? Not a chance, but why are those schools so terrible in the first place?

Does the fact that I went to school forever and took out all these loans really mean I EARNED making more than roughly 95% of the populace? Does the fact that I have worked my entire career doing primary care in underserved areas mean that it's ok that my children go to a hand-picked private school while the public one for my neighborhood is an urban catastophe? I certainly know that my father worked much harder to earn 1/5 the salary I do. And at the same time, it's the American dream. His work also went into what I am now. I don't know what's fair.

But I do know one thing. The money in my pocket is not just the result of my hard work. It's the result of luck, my father's hard work, his father's before him, state scholarship programs, student loan programs, and even the choices of Thomas Jefferson and some of those old dudes.

Distribution of wealth is a very tricky thing.

-------------
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.

Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 21:13

micky wrote:

if I wasn't married... I'd be all over you like stink on sh*t.

I'm not sure after reading the rest whether this is meant as a good thing or a bad thing.

-------------
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.

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 21:18

Slartibartfast wrote:

more perfect

Never got that.

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 21:34

Funny how in these discussions, the term "society" means " they that ain't wealthy."

Rich people have a place in society too, and it isn't to serve as a sugar daddy.

Here's an idea: If rich people have to give their fortunes to society, poor people have to give an equivalent of their time and energy to society.

But wait...

...that would be...

Shocked

...Slavery! Shocked

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 21:45

^ Oh great, now you want to bring back slavery, is that part of that whole teabag thing.

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 21:48

Easy Money wrote:

^ Oh great, now you want to bring back slavery, is that part of that whole teabag thing.

I also want to bring back eating Irish babies.

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 21:49

Negoba wrote:

Yes.

That's supply and demand. If I make a product or offer a service that a lot of people want, I can be rich. The guy who made up Facebook was 19 years old when he launched it. He's wealthier than you will ever be with all that training you did. Is it fair?

Yes.

What's my second favorite band?

Yes.

Will I listen to them now?

No. Because I am tired.

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 21:52

Negoba wrote:

Does the fact that I went to school forever and took out all these loans really mean I EARNED making more than roughly 95% of the populace?

Yes - that you have the intelligence, skill, and commitment to get to where you are means you earned it.

You worked hard to achieve all you have - why apologize for it? I don't.

I do apologize for my previous snarkiness.

Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:24

I knew the rules of the game, played a good hand in a pretty straightforward manner, and now I'm receiving the benefits.

But it could be a lot friendlier game we're all playing.

I apologize for my own hyperboles as well.

-------------
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.

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:31

Epignosis wrote:

Easy Money wrote:

^ Oh great, now you want to bring back slavery, is that part of that whole teabag thing.

I also want to bring back eating Irish babies.

Not overly modest now, are we?

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:34

I'm surprised no one has compared the U.S. health care system with the legal system. Unless I'm confused, anyone accused of a crime has at minimum a right to free legal representation, generously provided by the state (i.e., if you can't afford an attorney, one will be provided). The taxpayers fund this generosity. Now it may not be the best possible legal counsel, and yer ass may still end up in jail, but it's free and you will not be bankrupt and in jail. So does it not make sense that the U.S. should provide at least a minimal right to health care? And we could probably pay for it all by getting rid of that right to free counsel. So you're charged with a crime, have no legal representation, and end up in prison. On the plus side, you'll then be eligible for absolutely free taxpayer-funded health care.

-------------
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:34

Padraic wrote:

Negoba wrote:

Does the fact that I went to school forever and took out all these loans really mean I EARNED making more than roughly 95% of the populace?

See, that makes sense, that those who take the high route and go to school and exercise their brain a lot get to make a lot of money. What is truly unforgivable is that necessary jobs (police officers and your everyday hero types come to mind) don't really get paid that much, when any cop is just as valuable if not more so than a doctor, yet gets paid fractions less. School =/= value, necessarily.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:36

jammun wrote:

I'm surprised no one has compared the U.S. health care system with the legal system. Unless I'm confused, anyone accused of a crime has at minimum a right to free legal representation, generously provided by the state (i.e., if you can't afford an attorney, one will be provided). The taxpayers fund this generosity. Now it may not be the best possible legal counsel, and yer ass may still end up in jail, but it's free and you will not be bankrupt and in jail. So does it not make sense that the U.S. should provide at least a minimal right to health care? And we could probably pay for it all by getting rid of that right to free counsel. So you're charged with a crime, have no legal representation, and end up in prison. On the plus side, you'll then be eligible for absolutely free taxpayer-funded health care.

I don't know if that last bit is sarcastic. I hope so, because it's backward-minded as all hell.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:38

stonebeard wrote:

I don't know if that last bit is sarcastic. I hope so, because it's backward-minded as all hell.

Actually, I don't know if I'm being sarcastic or not. I don't know if that whole post is sarcastic or not. All's I'm saying, is that a certain segment of our population already has complete access to taxpayer-funded, free health care.

-------------
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.

Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:40

'For profit' may be the worst two word combination in the english language.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:41

stonebeard wrote:

Padraic wrote:

Negoba wrote:

Does the fact that I went to school forever and took out all these loans really mean I EARNED making more than roughly 95% of the populace?

See, that makes sense, that those who take the high route and go to school and exercise their brain a lot get to make a lot of money.

No, those who perform high-demand jobs* get to make a lot of money. There is good correlation with education, of course, but the piece of paper isn't a guarantee of anything.

* or work in the financial industry Wink

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:42

jammun wrote:

yes, Congress

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:43

Padraic wrote:

stonebeard wrote:

Padraic wrote:

Negoba wrote:

Does the fact that I went to school forever and took out all these loans really mean I EARNED making more than roughly 95% of the populace?

See, that makes sense, that those who take the high route and go to school and exercise their brain a lot get to make a lot of money.

Yep, ol' Bernie Madoff earned every cent he made. Of course, now he's in prison. On the plus side he's got that free health care.

-------------
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.

Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: March 19 2010 at 22:44

Atavachron wrote:

jammun wrote:

yes, Congress

Actually, I was referring to the other 3.2% of the criminal population.

-------------
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.