"Sicko".....just finished watching it..
-
StangerBanger96 wrote:
And I will only be happy if I have a Ferrari, a supermodel wife, 1000 acres of land, and free gasoline...therefore by your reasoning the Government should force people to give me these things.You forgot the little word "PURSUIT."No shit you don't have a right to happiness, but that's not what this thread is about.
thrash wrote:
Something can be a necessity without it being something the government will give you even if it means taking from somebody else.The rights we talk about all men having are god-given, and require no-one else to satisfy them. You don't have the RIGHT to happiness.. you have the right to persue happiness without the government getting in the way.
You don't have the RIGHT to health care... beacuse God didn't give it to you and neither can the government, without taking something from somebody else.
I'm not saying people don't need healthcare in order to not get sick. I'm saying that giving you healthcare means taking something away from somebody else.
These artificial rights are nothing more than 51% of the population agreeing to steal from 49% of the population.
Hopefully John Galt will show up and start the Strike any day now. Michael Moore won't be invited...
So I can't get health care from the government without taking something from someone else? What exactly are we taking and from whom? By YOUR logic, only 51% of the population will ever have to go to the doctor, and the other 49% will have to fully pay for them. That's obviously ridiculous. Even with our current system, people lose things: time, money, dare I say time and money taking health insurance companies to court? /gasp! Yes, I do know people personally who have had to do that.
Did you forget about the police? Firefighters? They're basically the same thing - government run and for anyone to use whenever they need. Do we not need them? What are we taking away from whom to keep them running?
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why we have a lower life expectancy with a better health care system.
-
amicheze;193958 wrote:
So I can't get health care from the government without taking something from someone else? What exactly are we taking and from whom?NO YOU CAN'T. To get government healthcare (Medicaid, Chip, Medcare, etc.) you have to TAKE from other people to provide for yourself.
That's one point we're trying to make. Why should I be forced to pay for YOU? Just because that's what you think is "right" doesn't mean it should be that way...
But it would work out anyways right? I mean...Social Security has turned out to be such a great system :rolleyes:
-
amicheze;193919 wrote:
Health insurance isn't socialization. Health insurance is capitalism. If it were socialism, everyone would have it, not just those that could afford it.I guess I should have been clearer: The concept of insurance is socialistic, everyone pays into a central entity and that entity gives out the money as they deem needed.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
StangerBanger96;193962 wrote:
NO YOU CAN'T. To get government healthcare (Medicaid, Chip, Medcare, etc.) you have to TAKE from other people to provide for yourself.That's one point we're trying to make. Why should I be forced to pay for YOU? Just because that's what you think is "right" doesn't mean it should be that way...
But it would work out anyways right? I mean...Social Security has turned out to be such a great system :rolleyes:
OOOH. I get it. So you wouldn't want to pay for me, even though if you ever went to the doctor (which apparently from the way you're talking, you never would), I would have to pay for you. Nevermind the fact that I would also be paying for myself, and you would be paying for yourself.
Is that not how all other insurance companies are today? Everyone pays X company, and that company pays for their customer's medical bills. If you pay for health insurance, you're helping pay other peoples' bills, because chances are you'll be paying more in insurance than your total medical bills over your lifetime. If that weren't the case, insurance companies wouldn't exist, much less have record profits today.
It seems kind of hypocritical to me.
-
amicheze;193971 wrote:
OOOH. I get it. So you wouldn't want to pay for me, even though if you ever went to the doctor (which apparently from the way you're talking, you never would), I would have to pay for you. Nevermind the fact that I would also be paying for myself, and you would be paying for yourself.Is that not how all other insurance companies are today? Everyone pays X company, and that company pays for their customer's medical bills. If you pay for health insurance, you're helping pay other peoples' bills, because chances are you'll be paying more in insurance than your total medical bills over your lifetime. If that weren't the case, insurance companies wouldn't exist, much less have record profits today.
It seems kind of hypocritical to me.
Insurance companies allow you to shop around. The same policy can cost much differently between companies, allowing you to shop around for the best policy for your needs. Those who don't get sick often can pay less than those who get sick more often or have other medical conditions. Socialized healthcare forces all to pay the same, so the person who rarely gets sick pays more for less care.
-
Alright, I think its time for a post here.
To whoever says we can get into the doctors faster than other countries obviously hasn't a ton of "non-ER" type incidents. As some of you know, my dad was recently diagnosed with cancer. I know from experience of all the APPOINTMENTs he has had to make multiple weeks/months in advance. Obviously I sort of expected it from Mayo Clinic, but simple procedures were booked 3-6 weeks in advance, at the minimum. His first diagnosis took almost 2 months. TWO months just to find out if he even had anything seriously wrong with him. Hell, we didn't even know what kind of cancer it was for about 4 months. Even now, he waits atleast 3 weeks to hear back about scopes, MRI's, biopsies, etc.
Now don't get me wrong, our healthcare system isn't terrible, but it's not that impressive, especially for the amount we pay. Every chemo session for him is $3700-$4000, and he has one every 3 weeks. ONE of his bottles of medication costs $75 COPAY everytime, and he has damn good insurance. His insurance company as of like July had paid out over $150k(thats about 7 months from the very beginning, before diagnosis). The co-pays of his insurance are still racking up. I don't have a number, because frankly I don't want to know how much his life is worth to a corporation.
So some of you who want to say our emergency care is instant, well it damn well better be, its an emergency, after all. I'd be willing to bet it's the same in England, Canada, and France.
Now I'm not saying socialized health care is the perfect answer, or that it would save my dad, because that would really have no effect on it, but what I am saying is please experience what it's like to really have to USE our health care system and health care CORPORATIONS. This is a perfect example of the BEST and WORST of capitalism.
Thanks and have a great night!
-
I apologize for using the word God and thus bringing the anti-religion folks out of their holes.
I was obviously alluding to the language of Jefferson where he discusses, in the Declaration of Independance, that all men are imbued with certain rights by their creator, whatever metaphysical entity you associate with that word.
Amongst those natural rights, "healthcare" was not on Jefferon's list.
My comment about "51% of people can always agree to steal from 49%" is just a reflection on all socialized government programs in any semi-democratic society. The reason that we are not a pure democracy is that democracy is mob rule. You can generally find some majority of people who are willing to enslave, tax, punish -- whatever -- some minority of the people. This is why laws must be found constitutional, and why we are a republic, not a pure democracy.
Property ownership is a natural right. This is a little weird -- you don't automatically "get" property, more like, the things that are yours are yours naturally, and are not granted to you by the state. Similarly, your life belongs to you and you alone, and is not granted to you by the state.
I don't understand how people can think health care is the same thing as concepts like property, life, freedom, etc.
Also, the idea that insurance is socialism is incorrect. I'm not aware of any true "mutual corporations" left providing health insurance. In a true mutual corporation, premiums are colllected and if there aren't many claims paid, then any surplus premiums are refunded to their members, and the entity operates as an effective non-profit.
That's not how insurance works. An insurance agency doesn't rely on strength in numbers or socialization per se, it is an investment strategy. Essentially, if you lend an insurance company money (premiums), they agree to pay you a specified amount in the event that you need them to. They take your money and they go off and invest it in various ways. As long as they invest wisely and don't pay too many claims, they make lots of money. Naturally, the more people that pay them premiums, the more money they can make and the less aggregate risk they potentially have. However, this is not a socialized cost-sharing scheme. The fundmanetal operation of an insurance carrier -- someone who takes a calculated risk of paying a claim, and in exchange for taking that possible future debt, collects a present small premium -- can work for a single entity.
That is -- a single human with sufficient funds can offer insurance to a single client. All that is involved is an actuarial risk assessment of the liklihood of paying a claim of size x in timeframe y. The question then becomes, based on x and y, and the risk factors, what premium "z" do i collect on an ongoing basis such that the client wants to pay the premium and i've got a good shot of making money on it?
There is a specific branch of mathematics that deals with assessing risk, calculating premiums, etc, called "Actuarial Science". People that figure this crap out for insurance companies are "Actuaries", and are about the biggest math nerds out there. As it so happens, my dad was the youngest "FSA' (Fellow of the Society of Actuaries) in the US back when he was younger, so I've heard a bit about insurance growing up
In any case, I hope that's not too confusing -- but essentially -- insurance isn't a socialized program. Insurance works if there is just 1 person holding a policy. Insurance can work better -- because of economies of scale, just like any other market -- if there are lots of people involved, but the fundamental principle is sound for the 2-party case. One party wants to pay to mitigate risk, the other party feels comfortable taking on that risk in exchange for money today.
Socialized medicine is something entirely different. The government is terrible at investing money (where's the accountability?) In socialized programs, some group of people collectively pay into a pool that feeds the costs of some other group of people (the two groups may overlap or they may not). There's no mechanism by which the money actually does anything useful; it's merely re-distribution of wealth. This is where my comment about "51% can agree to enslave 49%" comes from. A majority of people can usually convince themselves that making some minorty of people pay for their food, shelter, healthcare, etc, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
How many of you people that want socialized care donate money to charity? Even your church?
I'd like to think that people are above "i want to get mine, and i want someone else to pay", but I'm not convinced that they are. Is there some argument for socialized medicine that doesn't boil down to that?
-
amicheze;193709 wrote:
I'm watching the movie right now.I don't have health insurance. I can't afford it. If I get sick, I'm fucked.
You're telling me that I shouldn't be able to see a doctor because I can't afford it?
I have no insurance either so im fucked as much as the next guy but you are trying to tell me someone who works just as hard as us who does have insurance should pay for us also. I guess that makes a lot of sense maybe somebody should buy me a new car and a house also just because they have more money than me dumbass.
-
amicheze;193726 wrote:
The point isn't for a few to pay for everyone, the point is for everyone to pay for everyone. Who's to say you wouldn't use more than your fair share? Why should someone who can't find work be denied a doctor visit?Last I checked, England, France, and Canada aren't communist.
I have a job with the opportunity to sign up with benefits. I still can't afford them.
People not finding a job is bullshit taco bell is always hiring and i believe they offer benefits if not mcdonalds is hiring also and i know they have benefits. They will hire anyone so dont tell me people cant find a job people would rather be fuckin lazy.
-
StangerBanger96;193894 wrote:
I wonder if there is a statistic that shows purely how happy citizens are with their healthcare in their country...nothing more nothing less. I'd be willing to bet the US is on par with the rest of the world.I disagree with you there because i have begun to notice noone is ever happy with anything. I think people just like to bitch. There healthcare is probably just fine but when there is 100 people waiting to get in at the clinic and it takes them more than 30 seconds to get you in, people tend to get pissed off.
-
I may be wrong on this, but if I recall correctly, members of the house & senate have gov't sponsored healthcare already. Basically, they are allocated x amount of dollars and are then are given a choice of which insurance provider they wish to go with and which plan best suits their needs. More of an insurance subsidy than a gov't run program.
I'd be much more in favor of something like that, where I can still choose to have BCBS/Aetna/American Family/etc.... as my health insurance provider.
The basic theory behind doing something like this is that people will go to the ER whether they have insurance or not, since the ER (at least in ND) can not turn away someone for lack of insurance, therefore thousand (millions maybe...dunno honestly) of people will opt for care via the ER (which is a higher rate than a standard visit) and then not pay their bill, which ultimately gets absorbed by the hospital and we end up paying for it anyway since they will raise their rates to compensate for the loss of money. In theory, if everyone had coverage, this would dramatically reduce ER visits by people who can't afford to pay. By lowering the overall cost (since they are now going to walk-in clinics and/or scheduling appointments, the ER charges won't be so much) absorbed by the hospitals, it should, in theory, lower the amount that the hospitals need to charge for a visit....which should lower healthcare premiums for all. Add to that, the fact that there would then be a much larger pool of people to collect premiums from and it should lower the cost of health insurance even more.
Of course, one could also argue that if you insure everyone, everyone will go to the Dr. more which would cause rates to rise again, but people would also be more likely to get screenings done regularly (hell, make that mandatory even) as a preventive maintenance type ordeal which would make us a healthier nation overall and again should lower healthcare costs since we would be treating earlier.
Again, this is all theory, I have no idea how it would play out in the real world.
-
91teggy wrote:
People not finding a job is bullshit taco bell is always hiring and i believe they offer benefits if not mcdonalds is hiring also and i know they have benefits. They will hire anyone so dont tell me people cant find a job people would rather be fuckin lazy.My mom was laid off at her job a couple years ago. After weeks of turning in applications, she got desperate enough to apply at McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King. She was turned down at all three because she was over qualified and they figured she wouldn't stay there long anyway. Not everyone is just "fuckin lazy."
91teggy wrote:
I have no insurance either so im fucked as much as the next guy but you are trying to tell me someone who works just as hard as us who does have insurance should pay for us also. I guess that makes a lot of sense maybe somebody should buy me a new car and a house also just because they have more money than me dumbass.I'm not saying that someone should pay for my insurance while I don't contribute at all. I never once said that I want a free ride. (Maybe instead of health care, we should be discussing putting more money into education to help more people read.
) I'm saying that everyone should be able to go to the doctor and have the same opportunity to get medical care, whether they make minimum wage or a million a year. -
As someone stated earlier ER care cannot be turned down in most states so if you NEED to go the doctor you can. This thread is not about helping people get a better education because i am all for helping people get a better education. I work almost full time and go to school trying to get by because my dad makes too much money and i get none of it and the gov't wont help me out any because of it, but that is not the topic at hand. And as for getting laid off i believe they are required to still offer your insurance for some time such as a few months and after that the gov't will help you out because you have no job which means no income.
-
thrash;193997 wrote:
I'd like to think that people are above "i want to get mine, and i want someone else to pay", but I'm not convinced that they are. Is there some argument for socialized medicine that doesn't boil down to that?well, i guess we could always institute a flat tax and see how she all pans out
-
Thrash: that was quite an essay on insurance.
But what I said was the concept of insurance was socialistic. I'm aware that the insurance companies hedge their bets, and that they invest the money, etc... but to the consumer (us the insurance buyer) it is a socialistic concept.IMO insurance has caused the majority of the problems with the system as it is now. Health insurance "should" be similar to what auto insurance is... a catastrophic plan, only to be used under extreme circumstances. Why is health insurance involved with checkups, and other normal doctor visits? Do we really need that extra beaurocratic hogwash? It has made it so that we don't have any idea what things cost, and we don't care what things cost. It has taken all accountability out of the pricing of medical services. What if auto insurance were set up like health insurance is now? When we took the car in for an oil change the insurance company would pay for it, we wouldn't give two shits less if Jiffy Lube charged the insurance company $250 for that oil change. Plus we now have to pay the people at the insurance company money to do the paperwork and send a check to Jiffy Lube. So now the average Joe who wants to go to Jiffy Lube and pay cash now flips out about $250 for an oil change, you just can't afford that.
This is exactly what has happened, I'm not sure what the solution is, but it should have something to do with getting rid of insurance plans that cover everything. I know everyone will scream and complain about it, but it's the only way I see pricing getting under control again... we have to actually pay for services out of our pocket again. Use the insurance plan as it should be, when you are in an accident and are laid up in the hospital for days.
/end of reasoning
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login