Political/Current Events Random, Pics, and Videos Thread - Page 37 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-31-2011, 06:04 PM   #721
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
ok then lets just say that the income tax code is constitutional

just out of curiosity then
i am wondering how it is you feel about voluntary compliance
what does it mean to you?
and why is there a big difference in how irs.gov explains it and how the tax code author explains it?
Congress has been granted the power flat out in the original Constitution to tax people however they wish, with one addition: apportionment.

All the 16th amendment did was remove the apportionment clause in the constitution's authority to tax.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg.../IncomeTax.htm is an excellent article for further detail on your questions of it being voluntary. Income Tax is a well-settled legal matter, and although I strongly feel there are better ways for the government to generate tax revenue, I doubt we will be able to enact significant change to the income tax as it is now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
can someone help me out here and give me the full name of the act obama signed into law known as obama care.

a bill number would be sweet too

thanks
jared
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, good Wikipedia article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act

It's a really bad law imo, but not for the reasons the media says. (Actually, some of what the media says are the worst parts of the act are some of the most beneficial to normal citizens....It's retarded.)

(Edit) Ninja edits inc since you posted back-to-back Jared.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 06:10 PM   #722
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

sweet thanks for the link
i had found this one earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afforda...or_America_Act
but i could not confirm that it was the one that obama actually signed

now i just need to find the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
on a government website to confirm that it is the one that is law and i need to download it

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
(Edit) Ninja edits inc since you posted back-to-back Jared.

oops
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 06:59 PM   #723
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 177
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
now i just need to find the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
on a government website to confirm that it is the one that is law and i need to download it
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 07:27 PM   #724
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (18)
 
olderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 4,275
Total Cats: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
can someone help me out here and give me the full name of the act obama signed into law known as obama care.

a bill number would be sweet too

thanks
jared
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act
olderguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 08:33 PM   #725
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,047
Total Cats: 178
Default

I know how to protect patients and make care affordable:

Let people die.

If a man is responsible for his own health, he'll take better care of himself. If an insurance company is allowed to drop an unprofitable client, the man who is taking care of himself will have extraordinarily affordable health care.

If I have to pay for old, fat people who have lived their entire lives making unhealthy decisions, then my health insurance become extraordinarily unaffordable.

But I suppose this is a repost too.
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 09:19 PM   #726
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

the problem is people think that a service by man is a right.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 09:38 PM   #727
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
the problem is people think that a service by man is a right.
Where did you pick this up from, Brainy? Specifically, please. Not a limp-wristed response of "But that's what what WELFARE AMERICAH THINKS!" Well, unless you are claiming that you think that service by man is a right, then I'll happily debate that with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooger03 View Post
I know how to protect patients and make care affordable:

Let people die.

If a man is responsible for his own health, he'll take better care of himself. If an insurance company is allowed to drop an unprofitable client, the man who is taking care of himself will have extraordinarily affordable health care.

If I have to pay for old, fat people who have lived their entire lives making unhealthy decisions, then my health insurance become extraordinarily unaffordable.

But I suppose this is a repost too.
And where did you pick this interpretation of the PPACA from?

Yea, the PPACA is deeply flawed - but I fail to see how any possible interpretation of the PPACA could lead to what you are claiming. The closest I can come to what you claim is that an insurance company can no longer pre-approve a procedure, then later decline to pay for it. This interpretation baffles me.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2011, 11:48 PM   #728
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Where did you pick this up from, Brainy? Specifically, please. Not a limp-wristed response of "But that's what what WELFARE AMERICAH THINKS!" Well, unless you are claiming that you think that service by man is a right, then I'll happily debate that with you.
A lot of people think that, those making laws do too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-be..._b_212770.html
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 02:04 AM   #729
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
A lot of people think that, those making laws do too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-be..._b_212770.html
Okay. You are distorting what is being said in that article, but I'll roll with it.. After reading that lolHoffpolol article, I am surprised that you have such a vehement reaction to some parts of it. It's not primarily an article about people having a right to another person's work - but rather, about the economics behind it. It's an argument about having the right to affordable health care - this is markedly different.

The US pays the most of any country in the world (First, oh yes! USA! USA! USA!), and we are in the 30s or 40s for expected life span, quality of health care, and more.

1% of the people in our medical system are about 23% of our costs. 5% of the people are half or more of the costs. Insurance Companies cost us an additional ~50% or more on top of that. And then there is this ridiculous system where doctors aren't paid a salary, but are paid based on the tests they order/etc.. On top of this, 62% of all bankruptcies were caused all or in part due to medical bills. Interestingly, you'll note Malpractice isn't even on my list of contributing factors - it's not one. There's a red herring about malpractice, and I'll happily argue it if you want to go there. There's also a huge red herring about "omgwtflolillegals", and we can argue that if you want as well.

There's two questions you need to answer, Brainy. Ones that have nothing to do with what you are talking about.

First off, do you believe that health care should be affordable? This is what the argument boils down to. It's not that it's a right *per say*, but that if you get sick, you shouldn't be bankrupted. A choice between living or going bankrupt isn't one that people should have to face - and consider we're the only first world country that gives our citizens this choice.

Secondly, how do you propose to give medical coverage to that 5%? Or do you propose to let a 20th of the country just die? Perhaps a 10th? Even as much as a fifth of the country perhaps? Are you seriously proposing to let a large chunk of our population die simply because they do not have the money for our extremely high medical costs but have extremely easy to treat ailments even though it isn't a "right"?

I strongly support a public health system - not because of the whole "I AM ENTITLEDWARRGLHSADFLKABLE" idiocy, but simply because other nations with public health systems have a much saner, much more affordable system. I cannot speak for many, but what I have seen from the Netherlands system has impressed the hell out of me compared to dealing with the stupidity in our medical system.

Sources: Brainy's article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-be..._b_212770.html
Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States

Last edited by blaen99; 01-01-2012 at 03:47 AM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 11:27 AM   #730
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,179
Total Cats: 1,402
Default

I didn't even read the article, i googled "healthcare is a right" and found a good titile by Ben. Sandders.

Quote:
The US pays the most of any country in the world (First, oh yes! USA! USA! USA!), and we are in the 30s or 40s for expected life span, quality of health care, and more.
When you factor in the difference that we pay in overall taxes, we pay exactly the same as Canadians for health coverage.


Quote:
First off, do you believe that health care should be affordable?
Of course it should. But it should work itself out, the more regulations we [the gov't] keep putting on the industry, the most the costs rises. Example: Extending 26 year olds to our parents insurance (the first part of obamacare) has already cause prices to skyrocket.

Quote:
This is what the argument boils down to. It's not that it's a right *per say*, but that if you get sick, you shouldn't be bankrupted. A choice between living or going bankrupt isn't one that people should have to face - and consider we're the only first world country that gives our citizens this choice.
Yeah, so you believe it's a right?

You believe the government should provide all our citizens affordable care?

You don't care that all the welfare nations that do this are in worse economic troubles than us and are rationing care? (do I need to provide sources?)


Quote:
Secondly, how do you propose to give medical coverage to that 5%? Or do you propose to let a 20th of the country just die? Perhaps a 10th? Even as much as a fifth of the country perhaps? Are you seriously proposing to let a large chunk of our population die simply because they do not have the money for our extremely high medical costs but have extremely easy to treat ailments even though it isn't a "right"?
strawman.

Do you not think the rationing will not do the same?


Quote:
I strongly support a public health system - not because of the whole "I AM ENTITLEDWARRGLHSADFLKABLE" idiocy, but simply because other nations with public health systems have a much saner, much more affordable system. I cannot speak for many, but what I have seen from the Netherlands system has impressed the hell out of me compared to dealing with the stupidity in our medical system.
And I strongly want a complete private health insurance where I get the coverage I pay for, without gov't intervention in the system. I strongly believe that I would get the best deal this way.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 12:03 PM   #731
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,047
Total Cats: 178
Default

If we let all the people with lifelong chronic genetic diseases die, as nature intended, they would not reproduce, and therefore, we would have far fewer people with lifelong chronic genetic diseases...

I don't believe that we should "just let people die", but I believe more strongly that our nation shouldn't sell its soul to save them. What it comes down to is this: let every man be responsible for his own health.

If you know that you could be personally bankrupted by a medical requirement, then you're much more likely to become permanently interested in your own well being. Go ahead and enact such a thing, and you'll quickly see the smokers stop smoking and the fatties will start to slim down - those that dont will soon find that they don't have the money for food or cigarettes anyways.

Medical research, which is highly demand based, will gradually shift focus to prevention instead of correction.
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 12:13 PM   #732
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,337
Total Cats: 43
Default

Let the guy who can afford to keep his lifeling chronic genetic disease in check pay for it. Don't make me pay additional fees to keep everyone with that lifelong chronic genetic disease unnaturally immortal.
Enginerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 02:14 PM   #733
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,292
Total Cats: 178
Default

I think we have effectively reversed natural selection. Sure the major diseases and things still take people out. But think off all the retarded people who, thanks to medical science, are living a really long time.
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 02:29 PM   #734
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 803
Total Cats: 3
Default

I've talked with several people from different countries about their healthcare and they find it nice for basic things and prescriptions are much easier and cheaper to deal with, but they say they have to go to other places like the US or India to get major operations or specialist things done.

It's really hard to draw lines because there are always exceptions. The problem is when we make an exception, that gets used to make more exceptions which are similar, but not quite right. It doesn't matter what you do, human nature will eventually it up. The best thing to do is localize as much as possible so when it blows up, the impact is minimal. People are also closer to getting what they pay for that way and complain to local government instead of national when they're angry.
TrickerZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2012, 05:51 PM   #735
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 28
Default

Brainy, great post. I'm going to get to it ASAP, but it's new years, so it'll take me a bit to give that the response it deserves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cymx5 View Post
Let the guy who can afford to keep his lifeling chronic genetic disease in check pay for it. Don't make me pay additional fees to keep everyone with that lifelong chronic genetic disease unnaturally immortal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun View Post
I think we have effectively reversed natural selection. Sure the major diseases and things still take people out. But think off all the retarded people who, thanks to medical science, are living a really long time.
How about people with cheaply, easily treated diseases? How about cheap vaccinations? At what point do you draw the line for "Okay, this is too much!", or "Okay, this is too little!"

Do you propose letting an estimated ~150k children a year die due to being unable to procure the most simple and basic medical care? (Read: Extremely cheap, some procedures costing as little as $10)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrickerZ View Post
I've talked with several people from different countries about their healthcare and they find it nice for basic things and prescriptions are much easier and cheaper to deal with, but they say they have to go to other places like the US or India to get major operations or specialist things done.
What countries? I would understand if it was Canada, but Canada has a unique problem of all first world countries: We steal their doctors. Hell, we steal doctors from other countries all the time too, but Canada has it uniquely hard hit (This actually gives rise to another reason for our ever-increasing medical costs, but it will be covered in my response to Brainy's post later).

As an example to why I say this, I had surgery and it took about 3 weeks to get it all set up. In the UK, it took a friend about 6 months earlier ~4 weeks to get in for the same surgery.

However, in the UK? One news article that got blasted all around here in the US was "OMG! THE UK DENIED NEEDED HIP SURGERIES BECAUSE BAD MEDICAL SYSTEM!!!!!!oneoneoneoneretarded1" This was untrue, and in my eyes a flat out propaganda-based lie. What happened is the UK public health care system (NO, BAAAHDD) did an analysis on people who got hip replacements. They realized that giving hip replacements to fatties was a waste of funds (The severely obese were back in needing a new hip in both a very short time and at a surprisingly high percentage - high double digits IIRC. Basically, a total waste of time and money on everyone's part.). They then told the fatties "Lose weight, or don't get a hip replacement".

I don't see that happening here in the US, and yet it is exactly the thing I see all 3 of the posters I responded to supporting.

Quote:
It's really hard to draw lines because there are always exceptions. The problem is when we make an exception, that gets used to make more exceptions which are similar, but not quite right. It doesn't matter what you do, human nature will eventually it up. The best thing to do is localize as much as possible so when it blows up, the impact is minimal. People are also closer to getting what they pay for that way and complain to local government instead of national when they're angry.
There was a time when this was true, but in medicine in the US, this is no longer the case.

A major contributor that I ignored in my previous post with healthcare is right around the 70s and 80s, people began corporatizing hospitals. Currently, we have numerous corporations comprised of dozens or even hundreds of hospitals that operate on a for-profit basis.

In order to "localize" this, how do you propose decoupling for-profit hospital corporations that span the US from hospitals?

This is just one example, and the easiest of them btw in medicine.

Last edited by blaen99; 01-01-2012 at 06:05 PM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2012, 11:48 PM   #736
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
Congress has been granted the power flat out in the original Constitution to tax people however they wish, with one addition: apportionment.

All the 16th amendment did was remove the apportionment clause in the constitution's authority to tax.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg.../IncomeTax.htm is an excellent article for further detail on your questions of it being voluntary. Income Tax is a well-settled legal matter, and although I strongly feel there are better ways for the government to generate tax revenue, I doubt we will be able to enact significant change to the income tax as it is now.
you have totally 100% avoided answering the actual question that i proposed to you. you would make a great politician

which was
lets assume that this tax is constitutional
how do YOU feel about the MAJOR definition differences in reference to "voluntary tax" of the author of the tax code as compared to how irs.gov explains it

see post 706 page 36 for these definition differences

Last edited by jared8783; 01-03-2012 at 12:10 AM.
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 12:09 AM   #737
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooger03 View Post
If a man is responsible for his own health, he'll take better care of himself.
its not my responsibility to pay for the consequences for the ignorance of others

Simply put most people dont know how to eat right. They don't teach you how to eat right in public schools therefore it is not public knowledge. Don't get me wrong they do teach the pyramid and what not and it is important to have a balanced diet. But what really causes diseases is all the fake artificial crap that they put in our food.

And honestly most people dont even care to learn. My dad and stepmom both have very serious health problems. They are both severely overweight and one has cancer and the other has a severe irregular heart beat. I have researched both alot and tried to help them out. I have tried to loan books of mine to them. I have even just told them about one VERY common ingredient (MSG) that is in probably the daily diet of every american who does not watch out for it. It is known to be a fertilizer for cancer and to mess with heart beats. They have made no attempt to even cut back on that. I now feel less sorry for them than I once did.

It is NOT up to me to pay the rest of the nation to behave in the same manor.

If you want cheap food. You will get sick. It really is that simple.
Pay the farmer now or pay the doctor later.
I will pay the farmer now since the doctor cant cure alot of crap.

maybe we should have a socialized mechanics system so that i can pay for someones engine rebuilds since they refuse to educate themselves on how to properly maintain their cars.

all this bs aside that is not why i was looking up the obama care bill
i have heard a rumor and am trying to see if it is for real or not
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 12:17 AM   #738
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

hey gearhead i know you posted about mountain top removal on this thread before
i just watched a documentary about it on netflix called The Last Mountain
http://thelastmountainmovie.com/video/
it is really good and discusses the politics behind it
how it wasn't even legal until W. Bush came along
it discusses how it destroys the land

and the health effects
there was this one park where six neighbors living next to eachother all got brain tumors

if you dont have netflix im sure you can buy it
and probably find it on a torrent
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 12:27 AM   #739
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
you have totally 100% avoided answering the actual question that i proposed to you. you would make a great politician

which was
lets assume that this tax is constitutional
how do YOU feel about the MAJOR definition differences in reference to "voluntary tax" of the author of the tax code as compared to how irs.gov explains it

see post 706 page 36 for these definition differences
My link explained in great detail about the "voluntary" myth of the tax code.

I've re-read 706 twice now, and in my response, I fail to see how anything was not covered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
its not my responsibility to pay for the consequences for the ignorance of others

Simply put most people dont know how to eat right. They don't teach you how to eat right in public schools therefore it is not public knowledge. Don't get me wrong they do teach the pyramid and what not and it is important to have a balanced diet. But what really causes diseases is all the fake artificial crap that they put in our food.

And honestly most people dont even care to learn. My dad and stepmom both have very serious health problems. They are both severely overweight and one has cancer and the other has a severe irregular heart beat. I have researched both alot and tried to help them out. I have tried to loan books of mine to them. I have even just told them about one VERY common ingredient (MSG) that is in probably the daily diet of every american who does not watch out for it. It is known to be a fertilizer for cancer and to mess with heart beats. They have made no attempt to even cut back on that. I now feel less sorry for them than I once did.

It is NOT up to me to pay the rest of the nation to behave in the same manor.

If you want cheap food. You will get sick. It really is that simple.
Pay the farmer now or pay the doctor later.
I will pay the farmer now since the doctor cant cure alot of crap.

maybe we should have a socialized mechanics system so that i can pay for someones engine rebuilds since they refuse to educate themselves on how to properly maintain their cars.

all this bs aside that is not why i was looking up the obama care bill
i have heard a rumor and am trying to see if it is for real or not
It's also not my responsibility to pay for roads I don't use, emergency services that I've never used, schools that my nonexistant children will never use, fire protection I've never had to take advantage of, or courts that I've never been involved in.

What's your point?

Last edited by blaen99; 01-03-2012 at 12:59 AM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2012, 12:53 AM   #740
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
I didn't even read the article, i googled "healthcare is a right" and found a good titile by Ben. Sandders.
All right Brainy, I've looked and looked and looked during my free time over the past few days.

I cannot find this except for extreme right sources that try to claim the left is saying healthcare is a Right. As far as I can tell, the argument that affordable healthcare is a right (Note the lower case r, not the upper case Bill of Rights Right) is all that is coming from anyone, and you have people trying to put words in their mouth claiming something else.

Quote:
When you factor in the difference that we pay in overall taxes, we pay exactly the same as Canadians for health coverage.
BS. Source?

Quote:
Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.
This is the simplest and most readable source on the matter I can find. If you don't believe it, I can provide sources that are much less readable but a great deal more trustworthy. I would highly recommend reading my linked source for other myths about the system that are relevant to this argument. INCLUDING the waiting myth that someone trotted out in this very thread AND the myth that Canadians come to the US similarly.

Quote:
Of course it should. But it should work itself out, the more regulations we [the gov't] keep putting on the industry, the most the costs rises. Example: Extending 26 year olds to our parents insurance (the first part of obamacare) has already cause prices to skyrocket.
Insurance prices skyrocketed prior to any part of Obamacare being implemented, with the insurance companies crying wolf about Obamacare's costs and using it as a reason to raise rates.

Let's assume for a second Obamacare was completely repealed today. Sounds good, right?

About 4% of the population would see any change in premiums. That's it. Only the people under an individual insurance plan that meets certain specific criteria would be affected.

Quote:
Yeah, so you believe it's a right?
Lower case r, not capital-bill-of-rights-R. To be specific, I feel I have a non-bill-of-rights right to be able to get sick - and not die.

In the 50s, and even in the 60s this wasn't an issue. But right around when hospital corporations started really kicking it into high-gear and turning hospitals into for-profit businesses (Not to mention the associated move away from non-profit to for-profit of the entire medical industry), this went down the tubes.

Quote:
You believe the government should provide all our citizens affordable care?
Yes and no. To be more specific, I think the solution would be similar to the medical system we had in the '50s or '60s. This emphasizes personal responsibility, and a great deal more.

But wait. We can't go back to that now. You have to understand, I agree in principle with what you, or Fooger, or a lot of the other guys here say. But I also understand we can't go back to that time.

In order to do that, we would have to take over all for-profit corporatized hospitals and return them to the non-profits like they used to be, we'd have to rape the Brainy out of the insurance companies, we'd have to immediately place massive regulations over the AMA, we'd have to tear apart our entire IP system...The list goes on and on.

A public health option is the cheapest and easiest solution to our current system. It's not the best, I'll grant you that, but it's the only solution that has a chance of working.

Quote:
You don't care that all the welfare nations that do this are in worse economic troubles than us and are rationing care? (do I need to provide sources?)
Thanks for bringing up something I've been wanting to.

There are many ways to ration care. One of them is to raise prices. Guess what?

Medicine and doctors are finite. As it is, we see about 30% minimum overtreatment of all people (Source linked in a previous post, Wikipedia article) in the US. Read: 30% of all medical treatments have no purpose. Let's assume a miracle happened, and it was all cut out overnight....we would see a LOT greater than a 30% reduction in cost of medical services.

But because there is such a high demand, and no rationing other than in cost, cost continues to go up. Rationing isn't the bad thing that it is painted - I gave an example of rationing in a previous post. Specifically, my example of telling fatties to get not-fat to get a hip treatment. That's a form of rationing. Do you have a problem with telling fatties they can't get useless surgery unless they lose weight?

Quote:
strawman.
What do you propose to do about the 1% that takes up 23% of our medical resources? The 5% that takes up over half?

There's no strawman about it. This 1%, this 5% is almost entirely composed of your grandparents, my grandparents, everyone on this boards great grandparents or grandparents. The elderly are expensive as Brainy to insure from a private company. What is your proposal on how to deal with them other than letting them die?

Quote:
Do you not think the rationing will not do the same?
We already ration via cost, as explained earlier. This is a bad form of rationing for everyone but for-profit medical companies.

Quote:
And I strongly want a complete private health insurance where I get the coverage I pay for, without gov't intervention in the system. I strongly believe that I would get the best deal this way.
I agree on principle with you, but I also have to acknowledge it's not possible.

Sources: http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

Last edited by blaen99; 01-03-2012 at 02:08 AM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 53 12-07-2016 05:52 PM
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:17 PM.