Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Health Insurance . . . Revisted

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 5:04pm
Originally posted by evillepaintball evillepaintball wrote:

No, Mack, Obamacare is not the same thing as buying specific coverage for your home.  That is one of the worst analogies I have seen on this board to date.  


Huh?

Edited Addition: 

Translation:  "Huh?" = I don't think I used this analogy.


Edited by Mack - 14 December 2012 at 9:06am
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 December 2012 at 5:18pm
It's more like paying for general insurance for other peoples homes.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 9:13am
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

It's more like paying for general insurance for other peoples homes.


That is a very good analogy.


Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

  Using a law to justify itself isn't a rational argument.  
 

When discussing the legality of something, written laws and court precedent are literally the only things you have to go on. That's what we're discussing here. The question was proposed: Why would a well-bodied person buy insurance? The legal answer is because everyone buying insurance is needed to fund the program, and there is a fee associated with opting out.

This sounds like essentially the same self-justification argument with a little bit of the "end justifies the means" thrown in for good measure.

I'd like to point out that the fact that something is the law and therefore justifies itself isn't the same position that many on this forum take in regards to immigration laws.  If it was, there would be no disagreement here that everyone who is in the country illegally should be punished for it and deported.  After all, it is the law.


Quote The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid.  
 

That is not the word I selected.

No, it's not, but it is the message that was sent.

Quote If people aren't happy with the basic level of care they get from the government, then they should work to improve themselves so that they can get better, not expect others to foot the bill for them.

So, to be clear, your plan is a full-force ideological system based not on what is the most economically sound?

Edit:  I was really hoping I could find a couple of the sources I wanted to use before answering this but no luck.  (Probably because they aren't sources I usually use/reference -- they're kind of from the other end of the political spectrum from where I am positioned.)  Anyway, the articles I wanted to use were essentially justifications for going with a full taxpayer-funded system for everyone but were apparently written by someone from the left with a better understanding of economic and political realities than most.  They acknowledged that "government efficiency" was a myth and seemed to understand that a system like in the U.K. or Canada was probably not going to happen in the U.S.  What was interesting was that they did offer some seemingly viable alternatives that weren't the mess we have now. 

The alternative that I liked the best was very similar to what I mentioned;  essentially a basic safety net for those who couldn't afford insurance.  The numbers used, which seemed valid based upon cursory examination, indicated at least a small savings based both on the limited nature of the program helping to avoid government bloat and the removal of the profit motive by making it taxpayer-funded and cutting out the insurance companies.  It also, in a point that I readily agreed with, admitted that there were rampant fraud problems in existing programs and proposed legislation/penalties to deal with these and prevent there occurrence in the proposed system.   My point is that such a plan doesn't have to be economically unviable if properly managed.

This was my favorite of the options discussed;  I seem to remember the other options ran from "probably wouldn't work" to "are they joking?"

I mean, I guess. It's just an ignorant way to go about thinking things through, is all.

. . . and the above supports my point about the assumption that those who disagree are automatically somehow less informed/intelligent; which isn't a very unbiased position to start a dialogue from.




2nd Edit:

I just realized that none of the proponents of our new health care system have yet addressed what I pointed out regarding the original claims or "government efficiency" reducing costs to give us a system that could "do more and cost less" in light of recent developments.

Also, so those who disagree have something valid to get on my case about, here are a few more of my thoughts on social programs.

I am all for verification of need and usage of welfare (for lack of a better term) monies by those receiving them.  I don't see a problem with making those who are being supported by the state go through drug screenings.  I am also a fan of the credit card programs that are replacing food stamps because it makes it harder to trade benefits for non-benefit wants.  Furthermore, I wouldn't have a problem if the usage of such programs was further limited by restrictions on the type of food items that could be purchased with them.  If it was my call it would be the basic food groups and luxury items such as lobster and steak wouldn't be on the menu; neither would sodas or desserts. 

If this sounds awful big-brotherish,* then so be it.  If someone doesn't like the restrictions they always have the choice not to voluntarily enroll in the program.  But if they are in such a program, then they should accept the restrictions that come with it.  Also, if they were in such a program, they would probably also be voluntarily enrolled in a government funded medical program as well and as such, limiting food purchases (at least on the public's dime) to healthier choices makes sense. 

Now, before the cries of "Mack is a hypocrite" come out, because everyone knows how I feel about the government forcing participation in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), keep in mind that everything I mentioned is described as voluntary.

I will also admit that I don't have the solution for every problem facing either our current health care system or the PPACA.  For instance, I think the safety net should cover those who can't get coverage elsewhere due to pre-existing conditions but I have no sympathy for those that could afford insurance, choose not to get it, then have something come up where they should have had it but now can't get it.  (However, I really don't know what should be done about them;  I can't bring myself to just say "they chose poorly.")

Probably my biggest problem with PPACA is the aspect of forcing everyone to participate.  I think the SCOTUS made a politically expedient decision in regards to the commerce clause as opposed to one based on constitutional considerations and I don't think we've heard the end of that particular argument yet.  However, as it is the law, it should be followed.  (Note that this isn't justifying the law or agreeing with it, it is just recognizing it as the law.) 

Going back to my point on restrictions/standards on people receiving any government aid;  I find it interesting how the same people who feel perfectly comfortable telling others who have earned their money how it should be spent to support those who don't have much tend to disapprove of any effort to control how those same funds are used once they are in the hands of those that didn't earn them.



*Yes, I said "big-brotherish," get over it.


Edited by Mack - 14 December 2012 at 10:15am
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 10:34am
First off, I'm not a fan of the healthcare law as it stands, which probably means it's a decent compromise.

Private, for-profit, insurance has worked by denying coverage. There is real financial incentive for refusing to cover pre-existing conditions or dropping people when they get sick. In the last century we've rapidly become much more able to treat conditions that were sure killers, and it naturally costs more money. We've also become much better at predicting who will get sick through genetic testing. I think many of us would like to know if we were likely to develop cancer or Alzheimer's and get early treatment. Insurance companies would also like to know if you're likely to develop an expensive condition so they can drop you or charge you higher premiums. In preventing this discrimination, we end up all paying higher prices, so to keep prices in line, we're trying to expand the pool.

What irks me most about this debate is that people are freaking the bleep out over paying an extra $60 on their existing plan and would rather deny others coverage to keep their money.  I have second amendment rights and a shotgun, I don't see any communists or terrorists on my lawn, so I'd rather not pay for defense spending at all.
Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2981
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 10:43am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

It's more like paying for general insurance for other peoples homes.


That is a very good analogy.


Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

  Using a law to justify itself isn't a rational argument.  
 

When discussing the legality of something, written laws and court precedent are literally the only things you have to go on. That's what we're discussing here. The question was proposed: Why would a well-bodied person buy insurance? The legal answer is because everyone buying insurance is needed to fund the program, and there is a fee associated with opting out.

This sounds like essentially the same self-justification argument with a little bit of the "end justifies the means" thrown in for good measure.

I'd like to point out that the fact that something is the law and therefore justifies itself isn't the same position that many on this forum take in regards to immigration laws.  If it was, there would be no disagreement here that everyone who is in the country illegally should be punished for it and deported.  After all, it is the law.


Quote The inherent belief that anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid.  
 

That is not the word I selected.

No, it's not, but it is the message that was sent.

Quote If people aren't happy with the basic level of care they get from the government, then they should work to improve themselves so that they can get better, not expect others to foot the bill for them.

So, to be clear, your plan is a full-force ideological system based not on what is the most economically sound?

Edit:  I was really hoping I could find a couple of the sources I wanted to use before answering this but no luck.  (Probably because they aren't sources I usually use/reference -- they're kind of from the other end of the political spectrum from where I am positioned.)  Anyway, the articles I wanted to use were essentially justifications for going with a full taxpayer-funded system for everyone but were apparently written by someone from the left with a better understanding of economic and political realities than most.  They acknowledged that "government efficiency" was a myth and seemed to understand that a system like in the U.K. or Canada was probably not going to happen in the U.S.  What was interesting was that they did offer some seemingly viable alternatives that weren't the mess we have now. 

The alternative that I liked the best was very similar to what I mentioned;  essentially a basic safety net for those who couldn't afford insurance.  The numbers used, which seemed valid based upon cursory examination, indicated at least a small savings based both on the limited nature of the program helping to avoid government bloat and the removal of the profit motive by making it taxpayer-funded and cutting out the insurance companies.  It also, in a point that I readily agreed with, admitted that there were rampant fraud problems in existing programs and proposed legislation/penalties to deal with these and prevent there occurrence in the proposed system.   My point is that such a plan doesn't have to be economically unviable if properly managed.

This was my favorite of the options discussed;  I seem to remember the other options ran from "probably wouldn't work" to "are they joking?"

I mean, I guess. It's just an ignorant way to go about thinking things through, is all.

. . . and the above supports my point about the assumption that those who disagree are automatically somehow less informed/intelligent; which isn't a very unbiased position to start a dialogue from.




2nd Edit:

I just realized that none of the proponents of our new health care system have yet addressed what I pointed out regarding the original claims or "government efficiency" reducing costs to give us a system that could "do more and cost less" in light of recent developments.

Also, so those who disagree have something valid to get on my case about, here are a few more of my thoughts on social programs.

I am all for verification of need and usage of welfare (for lack of a better term) monies by those receiving them.  I don't see a problem with making those who are being supported by the state go through drug screenings.  I am also a fan of the credit card programs that are replacing food stamps because it makes it harder to trade benefits for non-benefit wants.  Furthermore, I wouldn't have a problem if the usage of such programs was further limited by restrictions on the type of food items that could be purchased with them.  If it was my call it would be the basic food groups and luxury items such as lobster and steak wouldn't be on the menu; neither would sodas or desserts. 

If this sounds awful big-brotherish,* then so be it.  If someone doesn't like the restrictions they always have the choice not to voluntarily enroll in the program.  But if they are in such a program, then they should accept the restrictions that come with it.  Also, if they were in such a program, they would probably also be voluntarily enrolled in a government funded medical program as well and as such, limiting food purchases (at least on the public's dime) to healthier choices makes sense. 

Now, before the cries of "Mack is a hypocrite" come out, because everyone knows how I feel about the government forcing participation in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), keep in mind that everything I mentioned is described as voluntary.

I will also admit that I don't have the solution for every problem facing either our current health care system or the PPACA.  For instance, I think the safety net should cover those who can't get coverage elsewhere due to pre-existing conditions but I have no sympathy for those that could afford insurance, choose not to get it, then have something come up where they should have had it but now can't get it.  (However, I really don't know what should be done about them;  I can't bring myself to just say "they chose poorly.")

Probably my biggest problem with PPACA is the aspect of forcing everyone to participate.  I think the SCOTUS made a politically expedient decision in regards to the commerce clause as opposed to one based on constitutional considerations and I don't think we've heard the end of that particular argument yet.  However, as it is the law, it should be followed.  (Note that this isn't justifying the law or agreeing with it, it is just recognizing it as the law.) 

Going back to my point on restrictions/standards on people receiving any government aid;  I find it interesting how the same people who feel perfectly comfortable telling others who have earned their money how it should be spent to support those who don't have much tend to disapprove of any effort to control how those same funds are used once they are in the hands of those that didn't earn them.



*Yes, I said "big-brotherish," get over it.
/sigh
If only I was so eloquent.  I agree with you 100%.
Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 10:48am
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

Because not everyone wants to be forced to pay and take care of people too lazy to do it for themselves?
 

That's fine. Ethical and moral abhorrentness of this aside, that's fine. 

So, when it's something you disagree with, it's ethically and morally abhorrent. But, if it's something equally controversial, but you support it, it is morally palatable? Okay.

Some people on the left on this forum always say that it's ironic that the right is more likely to push for a war, while fighting against abortion. How is it any different then, to fight for abortion, but strive to keep those who are actively draining society alive?


But you're costing yourself a considerable amount of money with this mentality. People who take perfect care of themselves, who don't "eat fried chicken and drink beer," as you so blew through the dog-whistle, still get sick. They still get issues with genetic diabetes. They still get high blood pressure. They still get internal cysts and ulcers. They still break their ankle biking to work. They still get cancer. They still get meningitis. They still get neurological diseases. They still get clinically depressed. 
That may be true for every one of the perfectly innocent people you mention, but there are also a massive number of those who are getting drug from death on a weekly basis already. Patients who refuse to show up for dialysis and then end up in the ER the next day, back to square one. ICU patients who get released, and go right back to living in their own filth, because they can't be bothered to clean up after themselves.

How about people that smoke their way to lung cancer and emphysema, or drink themselves into liver failure or car wrecks, will they deserve the full help of government funded medical care?(We don't even have to talk about how EBT  cards  can be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco)

Etc. 

And by saying "Well, I take care of my self, you should to," you're forcing those people with those conditions to use expensive emergency care systems -- or worse, prisons -- to be helped. It costs more to diffuse out those emergency systems than it would be to pay for those individuals to get help from the get-go, at least in preventative situations.


And what happens when all of those advanced screenings turn into expanded lists for heart transplants, and double bypasses and advanced medical care? What happens when the number of people living into their 90's on intensive daily care, often on full time hospital care, balloons far beyond its current state? From a 2010 60 Minutes piece "Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patientsí lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact."

That's Medicare alone. That doesn't take into account those who have private insurance. It doesn't predict what happens when our already overworked healthcare system is expected to handle a sudden massive influx of patients that don't care about their own health. 

So you're good with paying more money and having a sicker society simply to enforce an ideology that the poor are lesser people? 

I'm in favor of reforming the already screwed up systems our government has put in place before we go and start another credit line for a few trillion just to rush in and throw up a **edited**ty government system so that it can be entrenched in the public eye and used as election fodder in the coming years.


Quote Programs like this remove responsibility fom the individual and place it on the masses who do work.
 

I'm going to guess you're not around a lot of working poor in your everyday life.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest on here about a comment like that, and not that you'll believe me either way, but you're pretty far off with this comment.


Quote It's not fair o just chalk it up as a "cost of society" and call opponents of it ignorant because they disagree with you.

I'm a fan of pragmatic solutions to problems. I tend to think people who favor idealism, especially expensive idealism, over said pragmatic solutions are ignorant to their surroundings. 



Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

 

That's justifying the law with the law. 
 

That's how things work.



So do we get to start applying this to everything? No one should ever complain about the Patriot Act, because it's the law? No more pushing for equal rights for gay couples, because it's against the law for them to marry?

Real glad those during the civil rights movement didn't just say, "Oh, the law says we're not all created equal? Guess we better just go home then."



Edited by usafpilot07 - 14 December 2012 at 10:48am
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 11:24am
USAF- Thanks for proving in one post that you are clearly a horrible person and for doubling down on the "fried chicken" racist dog whistle. It's clear by that post that you think many people don't deserve to live, or are otherwise unworthy of help. What's your profession again?  Again, maybe I don't want to pay for a police force because I have a security system and a safe, or I have modern wiring and common sense and don't want to pay for the fire department I will likely never need. I could make that rationalization even more appealing to me if I convinced myself that bad things only happen to bad/stupid/financially unwise people. I'm not sure you even get how and why people enter into society with others if you can't imagine being compelled into contributing to the well being of others. Cancer or diabetes is a more threatening to me than say, Iran.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 11:46am
"you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it, hehehehhheheehhhehhe" said Nancy Pelosi...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/13/medical-companies-brace-for-devastating-obamacare-tax-prepare-for-layoffs/


"The Affordable Care Act imposed the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices with the goal of raising nearly $30 billion over the next decade. Manufacturers say the impact of the tax is far greater than meets the eye -- the 2.3 percent tax is on gross sales, meaning it's a much greater percentage of net income. 

Melinyshyn, for instance, said his total tax burden on profits will rise from 43 percent to 65 percent next year. 

"It's huge," he said. 

Another Illinois-based CEO -- Greg Huck of Vitalcor, Inc. -- suggested lawmakers should at least carve out an exemption for small companies and start-ups. 

It's not just small businesses feeling the pinch, though. 

Michigan-based Stryker Corporation, a company of 20,000 people, last year announced it was laying off 1,000 workers in anticipation of the tax -- and a $100 million bill in the first year. The company remains concerned about the tax. 

"We would rather put this money towards jobs, innovation, clinical research and priorities that will create value-added medical technology for patients while helping us partner with hospitals to deliver cost effective solutions," CEO Kevin A. Lobo said in a statement. 

The Advanced Medical Technology Association estimates that the tax ultimately could cost up to 43,000 jobs. "


So Obamacare (which is the "affordable" care act. Is proving to be anything but affordable, so we were lied to by liberal democrats. 



They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 11:52am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

This sounds like essentially the same self-justification argument with a little bit of the "end justifies the means" thrown in for good measure.
 

It's not, though. 

There  are two approaches to looking at the "justification" of something. Legal, and ethical.

When looking a the ethical justification of something, then no, presence of law doesn't help. But we were discussing both points. And when discussing the legal justification for legislation, then yes, the only things we can really use to analyze those points are written legislation and court precedent. 

It's two different things. 

Quote  

No, it's not, but it is the message that was sent.
 


Ok. 

Quote  a system like in the U.K. or Canada was probably not going to happen in the U.S.
 

Which, if you've followed along, is exactly what I said to Brihard. 

Quote The numbers used, which seemed valid based upon cursory examination, indicated at least a small savings based both on the limited nature of the program helping to avoid government bloat and the removal of the profit motive by making it taxpayer-funded and cutting out the insurance companies.
 

I'd love to read it, if you can find the link. 

Quote  
. . . and the above supports my point about the assumption that those who disagree are automatically somehow less informed/intelligent; which isn't a very unbiased position to start a dialogue from.
 

Informed, yes, intelligent, no. Thus my careful selection of initial words. 

Also, you've shown yourself to be rather intelligent on this issue, and I actually agree with you more than you seem to be willing to see at times. My point of ignorance was directed mainly at those who've decided that "Well I got mine, forget you," is a decent way to approach health care in the U.S. Those folks have indeed presented themselves in this thread, and those folks do indeed exist. It's a myopic, short-sighted and economically unsound principle. I just don't feel bad calling those people ignorant. Sorry. 

Quote  Probably my biggest problem with PPACA is the aspect of forcing everyone to participate.  

That's half of my issue as well. My issue is this -- why force people to buy something from a private company, especially in an industry that is kind of the root of the problem to begin with. The whole constitutional issue with PPACA was the idea of making someone buy something. It just seems silly to me, when we've got a system of taxation in the U.S. Instead of having the SCOTUS wiggle and call it a tax anyway, just get the Federal Government to collect and distribute the plans, even if those plans are brokered by insurance companies (Maybe that's a way to keep insurance as an industry post-change?). 

E-mail FWD jokes about government accountability aside, there are many more legal channels to pursue accountability and open records from the government than there is from private industry. Medicare has proven itself to be a very cost-effective program, much cheaper with less overhead than the equivalent private industry. But, that introduces another problem. It's low overhead is mostly from less oversight, which leads to increased fraud. 

It's a tricky balance. 


Edited by agentwhale007 - 14 December 2012 at 12:04pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:04pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

 
So, when it's something you disagree with, it's ethically and morally abhorrent.
 

No. 

Quote How is it any different then, to fight for abortion, but strive to keep those who are actively draining society alive?
 

That made sense when you typed it? 

Quote That may be true for every one of the perfectly innocent people you mention, but there are also a massive number of those who are getting drug from death on a weekly basis already. Patients who refuse to show up for dialysis and then end up in the ER the next day, back to square one. ICU patients who get released, and go right back to living in their own filth, because they can't be bothered to clean up after themselves.
How about people that smoke their way to lung cancer and emphysema, or drink themselves into liver failure or car wrecks, will they deserve the full help of government funded medical care?(We don't even have to talk about how EBT  cards  can be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco)  
 

People abuse systems, people make awful decisions. 

So, in your world, that's justification to not have social welfare systems, particularly those regarding healthcare, in place? 

Quote  And what happens when all of those advanced screenings turn into expanded lists for heart transplants, and double bypasses and advanced medical care? What happens when the number of people living into their 90's on intensive daily care, often on full time hospital care, balloons far beyond its current state?

Then those things happen?

Your point could be extrapolated out every time we've had advancements in medical care, and every time we've expanded those advancements to the public. 

Quote From a 2010 60 Minutes piece "Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patientsí lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact."
 

End-of-life care is a completely different, but really interesting, debate. 

It's a really tricky situation. I think I generally wish there was more of a cultural shift in this country to hospice care instead of elongated hospital stays, but I can wish in one hand, as they say. 



Quote massive influx of patients that don't care about their own health.
 

I'm curious as to how big, or like, what percentage of general population, you think people with no regard to their health make up? 
 

Quote No one should ever complain about the Patriot Act, because it's the law? No more pushing for equal rights for gay couples, because it's against the law for them to marry?
 

Are we discussing the ethical or legal justifications of those things? 




Edited by agentwhale007 - 14 December 2012 at 12:05pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:07pm
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

USAF- Thanks for proving in one post that you are clearly a horrible person and for doubling down on the "fried chicken" racist dog whistle. It's clear by that post that you think many people don't deserve to live, or are otherwise unworthy of help. What's your profession again?  Again, maybe I don't want to pay for a police force because I have a security system and a safe, or I have modern wiring and common sense and don't want to pay for the fire department I will likely never need. I could make that rationalization even more appealing to me if I convinced myself that bad things only happen to bad/stupid/financially unwise people. I'm not sure you even get how and why people enter into society with others if you can't imagine being compelled into contributing to the well being of others. Cancer or diabetes is a more threatening to me than say, Iran.


What about what I had to say has to do with race? I don't give two craps what color someone's skin is, I just want them to be self-sufficient. If I had to guess, I'd bet there are a lot more white people draining on the system than any other race. Clearly you either didn't read everything I read, or were so ready to tear it apart you didn't get what I was putting across.

I never said bad things only happen to bad people. In fact, I have even said more than once IN THIS THREAD, that I'd rather see an overhaul of existing programs to fix the medical industry AND the government support programs. But because I see this healthcare initiative as extremely damaging because it puts no safeguards on exponentially exploding costs, and no plan on how to deal with those who are nothing but a drain on the system. I ask again why is it okay for the left to cry out that Republicans want war but hate abortions, but it's not hypocrisy when the left want to legalize abortion while keeping those who threw away their chance on government life support.

Everyone that has been bashing the ideas put forth by me/FE/Mack/etc., seem to think that the only way to have a society is to subscribe to every one of their beliefs as well.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

 
Everyone that has been bashing the ideas put forth by me

What have you proposed? 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:15pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:



Quote That may be true for every one of the perfectly innocent people you mention, but there are also a massive number of those who are getting drug from death on a weekly basis already. Patients who refuse to show up for dialysis and then end up in the ER the next day, back to square one. ICU patients who get released, and go right back to living in their own filth, because they can't be bothered to clean up after themselves.
How about people that smoke their way to lung cancer and emphysema, or drink themselves into liver failure or car wrecks, will they deserve the full help of government funded medical care?(We don't even have to talk about how EBT  cards  can be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco)  
 

People abuse systems, people make awful decisions. 

So, in your world, that's justification to not have social welfare systems, particularly those regarding healthcare, in place? 

Absolutely not. I'm saying that with the welfare systems we have now, there is no system in place to handle removing those drains from the system in order to more effectively help those that also want to help themselves.

Quote  And what happens when all of those advanced screenings turn into expanded lists for heart transplants, and double bypasses and advanced medical care? What happens when the number of people living into their 90's on intensive daily care, often on full time hospital care, balloons far beyond its current state?

Then those things happen?

Your point could be extrapolated out every time we've had advancements in medical care, and every time we've expanded those advancements to the public.

The big difference being who pays for it.

Quote From a 2010 60 Minutes piece "Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patientsí lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact."
 

End-of-life care is a completely different, but really interesting, debate. 

It's a really tricky situation. I think I generally wish there was more of a cultural shift in this country to hospice care instead of elongated hospital stays, but I can wish in one hand, as they say. 

The reason I brought up end-of-life care, is that if the numbers of people hitting those years rises drastically, then the money spent by the government supported healthcare will also rise exponentially.



Quote massive influx of patients that don't care about their own health.
 

I'm curious as to how big, or like, what percentage of general population, you think people with no regard to their health make up? 
 
I'm not in the health care industry personally, but my mom is an ICU nurse. She says between 5-15% of the patients they care for(in her ICU) are there because of gross negligence on their own part, and that they are typically repeat customers. I know that's not an accurate assessment, but it is something worth considering.


Quote No one should ever complain about the Patriot Act, because it's the law? No more pushing for equal rights for gay couples, because it's against the law for them to marry?
 

Are we discussing the ethical or legal justifications of those things? 

The original question was about a person who can already afford their own healthcare not wanting to pay more for the same/less coverage. It was originally just rhetorical. I'm just saying, legal justification isn't everything here.


Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:34pm
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

 
Absolutely not. I'm saying that with the welfare systems we have now, there is no system in place to handle removing those drains from the system in order to more effectively help those that also want to help themselves.
 


I think the issues here are this. One, the amount of people who do act as a "drain" are far outweighed by the people who use the system as intended. Two, mayhap this is simply a difference of opinion, but the bigger societal concern is the millions of people who don't have insurance, either through cost or displacement or PEC. That's costing us more money than people who are abusing the system. 

Do I want to stop abusers? Yes. Absolutely. But I'd rather attempt to build a system to get everyone covered first, then work on that bit second. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:42pm
I'll use red and just make this a rainbow post.
Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:



Quote That may be true for every one of the perfectly innocent people you mention, but there are also a massive number of those who are getting drug from death on a weekly basis already. Patients who refuse to show up for dialysis and then end up in the ER the next day, back to square one. ICU patients who get released, and go right back to living in their own filth, because they can't be bothered to clean up after themselves.
How about people that smoke their way to lung cancer and emphysema, or drink themselves into liver failure or car wrecks, will they deserve the full help of government funded medical care?(We don't even have to talk about how EBT  cards  can be used to purchase alcohol and tobacco)  
 

People abuse systems, people make awful decisions. 

So, in your world, that's justification to not have social welfare systems, particularly those regarding healthcare, in place? 

Absolutely not. I'm saying that with the welfare systems we have now, there is no system in place to handle removing those drains from the system in order to more effectively help those that also want to help themselves. In the cases you're talking about, your solution is to deny them coverage and/or let them die. You want to be able to deny people care or benefits based on perceived lifestyle choices.

Quote  And what happens when all of those advanced screenings turn into expanded lists for heart transplants, and double bypasses and advanced medical care? What happens when the number of people living into their 90's on intensive daily care, often on full time hospital care, balloons far beyond its current state?

Then those things happen?

Your point could be extrapolated out every time we've had advancements in medical care, and every time we've expanded those advancements to the public.

The big difference being who pays for it. We all do either way.

Quote From a 2010 60 Minutes piece "Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patientsí lives. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact."
 

End-of-life care is a completely different, but really interesting, debate. 

It's a really tricky situation. I think I generally wish there was more of a cultural shift in this country to hospice care instead of elongated hospital stays, but I can wish in one hand, as they say. 

The reason I brought up end-of-life care, is that if the numbers of people hitting those years rises drastically, then the money spent by the government supported healthcare will also rise exponentially. So we shouldn't pursue medical advances that extend people's lives because it gets expensive? Should we cut off medical care for anybody over 75? Your solution sounds remarkably like denying care.



Quote massive influx of patients that don't care about their own health.
 

I'm curious as to how big, or like, what percentage of general population, you think people with no regard to their health make up? 
 
I'm not in the health care industry personally, but my mom is an ICU nurse. She says between 5-15% of the patients they care for(in her ICU) are there because of gross negligence on their own part, and that they are typically repeat customers. I know that's not an accurate assessment, but it is something worth considering. But because of the 5-15%, universal coverage is a bad idea?


Quote No one should ever complain about the Patriot Act, because it's the law? No more pushing for equal rights for gay couples, because it's against the law for them to marry?
 

Are we discussing the ethical or legal justifications of those things? 

The original question was about a person who can already afford their own healthcare not wanting to pay more for the same/less coverage. It was originally just rhetorical. I'm just saying, legal justification isn't everything here. So forget legal, is it moral? If I would rather keep that $60 fee, deny you coverage and watch you go bankrupt and/or die?


  You have pointed out some interesting problems, I'll give you that. People live too long, it's too much to ask you to help pay for their well being, and we can't cut people off when we disagree with their actions. How about in the interest of fairness we eliminate health insurance for everyone, and you only get the medical care you can pay for out of pocket or your doctor will accept an IOU for? We can make it very free-market and you can buy whatever kind of care you want from anybody who will perform it. I'll even let you get in on the ground floor of my leech-farming business plan.Then nobody has to pay for other people at all. Clearly net worth is the best way to judge someone's moral character and worthiness of good health.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 12:59pm
Danger, death panels ahead! 

Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

So we shouldn't pursue medical advances that extend people's lives because it gets expensive? Should we cut off medical care for anybody over 75? Your solution sounds remarkably like denying care. 

USAF is actually very much correct on this. We need to take a serious look at how we address and pay for end-of-life care in this country. We spend a lot of money on procedures that do no good, don't extend life, and don't improve quality of remaining life. They just rack up costs for emotionally desperate family members. 

That doesn't mean we ban procedure or anything, but we need to carefully consider what we pay for when looking at end-of-life care. 


"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
usafpilot07 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
FreeEnterprise's #1 Fan & Potty Mouth

Joined: 31 August 2004
Location: Tokelau
Status: Offline
Points: 4450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote usafpilot07 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 1:14pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007 agentwhale007 wrote:

Originally posted by usafpilot07 usafpilot07 wrote:

 
Absolutely not. I'm saying that with the welfare systems we have now, there is no system in place to handle removing those drains from the system in order to more effectively help those that also want to help themselves.
 


I think the issues here are this. One, the amount of people who do act as a "drain" are far outweighed by the people who use the system as intended. Two, mayhap this is simply a difference of opinion, but the bigger societal concern is the millions of people who don't have insurance, either through cost or displacement or PEC. That's costing us more money than people who are abusing the system. 

Do I want to stop abusers? Yes. Absolutely. But I'd rather attempt to build a system to get everyone covered first, then work on that bit second. 


I think on certain issues, we're really not that far off from one another. My concern is that our government, on both sides of the aisle, have no track record for building a system that is effective, while also having safe-guards against leaches who are doing nothing but hurting others.

In the case of our currently enacted health care legislation, I honestly feel that it was hastily thrown together in order to get SOMETHING out there. Once something like that has a foothold in a populace, you can't just rip it away. As such, we're now starting out in a deeper hole than it ever should.

Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

I'll use red and just make this a rainbow post. In the cases you're talking about, your solution is to deny them coverage and/or let them die. You want to be able to deny people care or benefits based on perceived lifestyle choices.


In a way? Sure. If the government is going to start taking money out of pockets to pay for other people's expenses, there needs to be a system of checks and balances in it that insures that it is being used effectively. Those people that abuse the system are only hurting the taxpayers and the deserving beneficiaries of such a system.

Quote
The reason I brought up end-of-life care, is that if the numbers of people hitting those years rises drastically, then the money spent by the government supported healthcare will also rise exponentially.

 So we shouldn't pursue medical advances that extend people's lives because it gets expensive? Should we cut off medical care for anybody over 75? Your solution sounds remarkably like denying care.


You just really want to shoe-horn me into a mold that is easier to attack don't you? First you decided to try and play the "he's a racist" card, and now I'm an anti-science old person killer?

I was pointing out that if healthcare like Whale and I were discussing(earlier screening, smaller treatments, etc) expand, so too will the numbers of people living into an age that, while survivable in America, has a quality of life vs. cost that is already complicated enough for families to deal with, let alone a nation that has to deal with rising costs and dwindling money.

It wouldn't necessarily happen over night, but in 30 years? I hope we've made some miracle advances in medicine and in our spending, because otherwise the amount of decrepit old people being kept alive by machines paid for by the government will be enormous.

Quote
I'm not in the health care industry personally, but my mom is an ICU nurse. She says between 5-15% of the patients they care for(in her ICU) are there because of gross negligence on their own part, and that they are typically repeat customers. I know that's not an accurate assessment, but it is something worth considering.

But because of the 5-15%, universal coverage is a bad idea?



Again, I'm pointing out that it is a very real, very large cost that has to be taken into account.

Quote
The original question was about a person who can already afford their own healthcare not wanting to pay more for the same/less coverage. It was originally just rhetorical. I'm just saying, legal justification isn't everything here.

So forget legal, is it moral? If I would rather keep that $60 fee, deny you coverage and watch you go bankrupt and/or die?


My response in green. I couldn't tell what was sarcastic and what wasn't, so I responded to the whole thing.

Quote   You have pointed out some interesting problems, I'll give you that.

 People live too long,
I disagree. However, the end-of-life costs in America ARE astronomical, that's not really debatable.


 it's too much to ask you to help pay for their well being,

For some peoples, maybe. Why should my tax dollars go to replacing the liver of a person who is going to leave the hospital, buy a fifth, and start wrecking another one?


and we can't cut people off when we disagree with their actions.

I disagree. It's like living under your parents' roof. Their house, their money, their rules.


How about in the interest of fairness we eliminate health insurance for everyone, and you only get the medical care you can pay for out of pocket or your doctor will accept an IOU for? We can make it very free-market and you can buy whatever kind of care you want from anybody who will perform it.

I like the idea of making it a free market. How about, we let everyone keep their money as it was, and if any company is willing to take that money and bet against me getting sick or dying, we can agree to a payout based on who wins that bet? Even better, I can look at multiple companies, see who is laying better odds, an decide to go that way.


 I'll even let you get in on the ground floor of my leech-farming business plan.

No thanks. Leeches are yucky.


Then nobody has to pay for other people at all.

So now we've moved on to magical free healthcare?


Clearly net worth is the best way to judge someone's moral character and worthiness of good health.

I don't even know where that came from, but I'm going to have to disagree with you there.






Edited by usafpilot07 - 14 December 2012 at 1:15pm
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4927
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2012 at 3:27pm
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by evillepaintball evillepaintball wrote:

No, Mack, Obamacare is not the same thing as buying specific coverage for your home.  That is one of the worst analogies I have seen on this board to date.  


Huh?

Edited Addition: 

Translation:  "Huh?" = I don't think I used this analogy.

Well whoever said it, it's a terrible analogy where one isn't needed. Here is a better one:

It's like everyone paying money into a health insurance plan and everyone having coverage.  

It's a simple concept, no analogy is needed.  
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.