Health care reform - Some of this stuff just makes me want to spit and cuss

I dunno. I like the idea. Why not give people the opportunity to have affordable government based insurance; for the fraction of the price. EVERYONE no matter your situation should have health insurance. We are already paying for the uninsured, when they go to the emergency room. If everyone was required to have Health insurance, than that hidden tax we pay for the uninsured would drop significantly. Really, being required to have health insurance is not some right being taken away from you, its a right being given to you.

I agree, very much so, that everyone should have insurance.

I simply disagree that piling fines upon someone already trapped between a rock and a flooding river is a decent idea.

What happens when someone is either unable or refuses to pay the fine on principle? More fines are piled on top of the old ones. Then what happens? If the person still refuses or is unable to pay? Are other privileges taken away? The persons drivers license? The right to travel out of the country (the passport taken away)? Are they incarcerated? If they are incarcerated they might actually receive free health care. Forgive my cynicism, please. But all of these measures are common ones that are taken for people who cannot or will not pay their child support. I see this as being the cycle. A cycle that can mean a horrible life and many years of difficulty.

A cycle that keeps people in poverty on so many levels, taking the little money someone has. Preventing people from being able to better themselves by making it harder to get a good decent wage job or qualify for different schools or training programs.

I would rather pay extra taxes, even as my income goes up over the years, than see people trapped in cycles that causes them to be unable to better themselves.

You won't have to pay a fine if you get the insurance.

If You Don't Have Insurance
Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans
Creates a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices. The President’s plan allows Americans who have health insurance and like it to keep it. But for those who lose their jobs, change jobs or move, new high quality, affordable options will be available in the exchange. Beginning in 2013, the Exchange will give Americans without access to affordable insurance on the job, and small businesses one-stop shopping for insurance where they can easily compare options based on price, benefits, and quality.
Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance. The President’s plan will provide new tax credits on a sliding scale to individuals and families that will limit how much of their income can be spent on premiums. There will also be greater protection for cost-sharing for out-of-pocket expenses.
Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees. The President’s plan will also provide small businesses with tax credits to offset costs of providing coverage for their workers. Small businesses who for too long have faced higher prices than larger businesses, will now be eligible to enter the exchange so that they have lower costs and more choices for covering their workers.
Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice. The President believes this option will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary. The President believes the public option must operate like any private insurance company – it must be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.
Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national "high risk" pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created. For those Americans who cannot get insurance coverage today because of a pre-existing condition, the President’s plan will immediately make available coverage without a mark-up due to their health condition. This policy will offer protection against financial ruin until a wider array of choices become available in the new exchange in 2013.

Also, I don't see anything about fines in the plan. The plan mostly states if you can't afford it, we'll make it affordable to you so you don't go uninsured. So if there were fines, it would only be for the people who truly don't want it. A very small percentage would pay fines. There's no excuse not to have/get the insurance...

No, you're correct. There is nothing about fines in there. And, as I said, it seems like a pretty sound plan overall. I do worry very much about the idea of a requirement though, and how that requirement would be enforced.

Max Baucus's plan has fines. There are about 10 different plans circulating through congress right now, even a couple conservative plans. All have some varying differences.
The Baucus plan though is garbage. The threat of fining people will only lead people to purchase insurance they cant afford, thus guaranteeing the so called health insurers a whole lot of new members.
That and where would the money fromt he fine go? Me thinks to the health companies but thats just speculation.

What I mean is, the idea of even one person becoming stuck in a detrimental cycle they cannot get out of is highly unacceptable in my mind.

Oh I agree, you analogy of auto insurance was spot on.
Health care needs reform no doubt< I just dont think either side right now has a good solution and the fear mongering is out of control.

This, to me, is the main sticking point, as I'm pretty sure most people would agree. We live in a community; the healthcare system in its current incarnation, has crossed a line between "helping some and hurting some" into "hurting pretty much everybody." Last year, 60% of the people who filed for bankruptcy did so because of medical bills, and of those 60%, 3/4 of them were insured to some extent. More insured than uninsured people are having to file. That's so fucked up.

I would get involved in this discussion but I'm busy getting people pregnant.

Brb.

Jane Im going to play devils advocate here for a sec. This is just a talking point.
Yes we do live in a 'community' if you will, but it works both ways. If living in a community , dont people then have a responsibilty to be as healthy as they can for others in the community? Now I not talking about preexisting conditions, you cant help what your born with, but Im talking of those that smoke two packs a day, drink a fifth a vodka a night, eat McDonalds three times a day and are morbidly obese.
If we are truly a community then all members of the community have a responsibility to each other. If Im a memebr of that community and my neighbor is scarfing double cheeseburgers and a 32oz of cola every lunch and dinner, well that would anger me, because they are not being responsible

Talking point done. Its not my 'views', just something that popped into my head. Ill eat a damn cheeseburger whenever I want!

Anyways I agree, we need overhaul of healthcare. I personanly know a lady who went bankrupt after a car wreck that wasnt her fault, she had to have a leg amputated, she had insurance .
My FD has been raising money for a girl in our town who needed a lung transplant. Wanna know what her bill is? Three fucking million dollars and its still going up! Three million dollars, that fucking criminal!

One thing I wish would happen is some meaningful discussion on the issue by our politicians. The Dems seem hell bent on getting this done asap while the GOP has just tuned out like a 3rd grader whos teacher is giving a lecture on math.
The sides arent working together, and this bodes well for no one .

And the lung was free. The person it used to belong to gave it away free of charge to anyone who may have needed it when they themselves were finished with it.

My kids school dedicated nearly all it's fund raising money a couple years ago, on top of having special fund raisers, for a girl who needed a liver transplant. And the liver itself came from her living mother (who donated a portion of her own liver) I remember the goal was to attempt to raise as much as possible to offset half a million the family owed after what their insurance covered.

you know whats fucked as well as my favorite radio guy was sayin today, the broadcasting company he works for changes insurances every couple of years or less, he had testicular cancer like 7 years ago, so when they switch insurance THAT new insurance says his cancer is a pre existing condition, so if it comes back, guess what, they won't cover it. they won't cover him if CANCER comes back. pricks!

I don't know a whole lot about American politics. I can't say I've read up on the whole health care reform going in your country either, but I honestly hope you guys can get something like the Canadian medicare system. I think that would help so many American families. Sure we pay taxes on everything imaginable but most (not all) of our medical care is free as long as we have our government issued card with us. It's not perfect but when you're sick there's no need to check the bank account which is a HUGE benefit. In the end,I hope this whole thing pans out for you folks.

I personally think someone needs to overhaul Medicaid first..........

I 'sold' someone an $886 dollar prescription today for free.

So glad I paid my taxes so they could get that taken care of. They also had a gaggle of children with them. All one family. About 6 kids. Nuts I tell you.

i think paying higher taxes is worth the free medical care.

This whole illegal immigrants thing is ridiculous. You can't deny anyone emergency care. what are you going to do? Let them die on the street?!

See Im not behind paying higher taxes. I already pay a lot in taxes, I make pretty good money, and I already pay for health care to cover myself, wife and child, which is about $350 a month.(I pay 20% my employer pays 80%, my 20% share is the $350). I think with enough reform we can lower the prices enough to make it so no one has to pay more taxes. I would pay a higher tax for free health car for anyone under 18, I stated that before.
Now Im assuming your talking a single payer system which isnt even in the conversation at the govt level. Even Obama has stated that its not doable. However I would like to see some numbers on it dont know what it would cost me in taxes, for all I know it may be a wash financially for me.But single payer isnt in the cars and it may be to late for that system in our country.
Also you wanna hear cries of socialism, mention single payer and there will be riots in the streets of suburbia.

Your right, you can't deny anyone emergency care, but you can deny them clinic type care (laws and stuff can be ammended), and if you do that, the illegals just start flooding ER's with non emergency medical issuse.
Its bad enough now what people use ER's for. Before I was a firefighter I worked as a paramedic on an ambulance. I also worked in a fairly busy system and you wouldn't believe how many hospitals' ER's are jammed up with the most BS crap you have even seen. Now add an immigrant population who would be forced to seek their care in an ER and its going to be disaster.

Not necessarily. Again I will use my experience on this one. I still respond to 'medical' calls, that is people call 911 for medical emergencies and the FD shows up.
A lot of the obese and lifetime smokers may die sooner, but the amount of meds they are on now is astounding. We have to take detailed reports on all medical calls we respond to, and part of that report is the list of meds the patient is on. Sometimes they read like a book. They are on medicare and have 30 different medications. Those meds cost a lot.
People being healthy save money in the long run. Less meds.
(Now I can start going of on my big pharm conspiracy rant , but I dont think anyone wants to listen to that.)
I think that any part of health reform needs to start at the basic level of personal health. And personal health starts at the grocery store. Eating healthy is expensive, especialy when generic soda is 99 cents a two liter and twinkes are cheaper than oatmeal.
Stop smoking, drink in moderation.
Exercise.
But when cheap crappy food is available, thats where the poor will gravitate. And oits the poor who usually suffer the most overall health problems.
Im with you that a single payer wont work. Our govt is too entrenched with the health care lobby and big pharm. Its too late for that.
One thing also I would like to see is comeptition opened across state lines, another thing the health care lobby is against.

I love conspiracy rants.

I don't think that eating healthy is more expensive, in fact it is just the opposite.

I learned how to cook everything from scratch in my early twenties out of necessity... we had about a fifty dollar a week grocery budget at the time to feed five people on.

I think a lot of people think healthy means all organic and buying low-fat packaged food.

The problem is more a complete ignorance of the food pyramid, portion sizes, dislike of fresh fruit and vegetables and also a belief that things like dairy and meat are truly necessary on a daily basis.

Eliminate packaged food and the price drops while the nutrients rise.

Lettuce is about a dollar a head, bananas sixty cents a lb. Eggs are expensive by the dozen but quite cheap if you buy a flat with five dozen about six or seven dollars. Dried beans are seriously like fifty cents a lb and they will make two whole soup pots. A guy I know bakes his family's bread, it costs about three or four dollars a month because he buy's flour in bulk. Tea is a couple dollars a box and you can make gallons of antioxidant rich iced tea to drink instead of soda or juice. I could go on and on.

People with grocery carts full of nothing but packaged meals and packaged snacks and packaged drinks all labeled Organic or Low fat Or Healthy are only fooling themselves.

Ideally, everyone gets health care for free, and nobody pays for it. I'm all for that, just in the ideal world, not the real one.

/self-satisfying dickishness

True, there is no easy solution for either of those demographics (disadvantaged elderly and people with pre-existing conditions). Health Care for either is already going to be more expensive than say, anyone else of average health/no imminent health risks. And that is the purpose of insurance — it's not meant to solve your health problems, it is meant to insure you against future ones. For people with conditions and no coverage, you wouldn't call the cost of their treatment 'insurance', but simply 'treatment'. They know they're going to need it, so by getting insurance, they're not 'insuring against' something happening.

For these people, insurance is not what they need, but charity. It is already established that their bills will be x-amount, likely what they can't cover, which is why it is illogical for gov't to force insurance companies to accept such people whom it is known will only drain the insurance pot that other people are throwing into. This forces prices up, and often drives customers out. Then you have more uninsured people, whom may develop conditions, and while not covered, are more to care for that become only a monetary loss.

This is why it is wise for people to have insurance to begin with. But many things are wise that should not be forced on people, because when you force things on people, they cease to be free.

Just to clarify, because I'm not entirely sure I understand, do you mean there'd be a price limit set which is automatically higher than a certain demographic could afford?

If so, I beg to differ. The natural tendency of the marketplace is to meet demand with supply. There is demand for health insurance among millions of Americans who cannot currently afford it, and that demand is not being met. Why this is is complicated, but to be put simply as I understand it, involves the partnership of already established insurance corporations and gov't. Corporations (the legal fiction that they are) have through 'regulation' been granted a monopoly on health coverage and profit more from providing larger plans that the less fortunate cannot afford, but which nets more profit than un-ensured profits in more specific plans.

If companies were physically allowed (as the marketplace would force them to be if it were not interrupted) to offer simpler plans for coverage, there would be affordable plans. But when a plan must include coverage options that an individual knows that they themself will never use, its the equivalent of saying, 'when you go to the store to buy bread and milk, you also need to buy peanuts, even though you may be allergic to peanuts and have no use for them yourself'. People who like peanuts tend to favor such proposals because it's subsidizing what they'd already be purchasing. As with all gov't, you have people competing for the use of force over others in every area, and it becomes as Frederic Bastiat concluded, and I'm paraphrasing, a system of all plundering all.

I'm not gonna claim to be an expert on how demand would be affected by most proposals, but I don't currently see demand being grossly affected one way or the other. It is not so much that people have health problems that need be addressed, but that they want coverage in the event of future health problems. If people are sick in need of emergency care, US law requires that they be treated. A big part of the cost problem is that the bills of these emergency cases are not being paid and are being pushed off onto the hospital. This is part of the reason it is more expensive for people without health coverage to get something done than with it, because the hospital knows insurance is an assured payment, where individuals may not be.

*Post script - I put on some Free Talk Live after I finished writing this, and Gard, one of the hosts, and a well-versed man economically, said whenever there's a reform making the health care itself easier to obtain, demand will increase. Therefore, my above statement may be incorrect, but I won't edit it for sake of having both perspectives out there. This leads me to believe that demand is going up if there is any reform, whether de-'regulation', or total gov't takeover. Fortunately, the marketplace, if not prevented from doing so, will handle increased demand, whereas the guberment never budgets properly for unforeseen expenses (for examples of this, take a look at anything they've ever done).*

If there's a profit to be made from people, you can bet someone will be willing to make it. This is the beauty of the marketplace, it works to provide for that which is demanded. It seeks equilibrium and efficiency and is only hampered by gov't intervention.

The competition a gov't program would have created would be artificial. It's a subsidized effort, which means that it would be taking from some other facet of the marketplace, hampering production in some other area (that which is seen, and that which is not seen). If you have five FRNs with which you wish to buy a candy bar and a gallon of milk, and the gov't takes it from you to buy a gallon of milk, you haven't gained the milk so much as you've lost the candy bar. Of course, we don't see it this way because we never see the money go. Then more money has to be made if we wish to have the candy bar.

Maybe, hopefully. But quality of coverage and options would be retarded.

They are a company themselves! Gov't is by definition a corporation, which is an entity which doesn't in and of itself exist, but is treated as though it does and protected by image and legitimacy from being held responsible for its own actions (to a degree). Corporate theory is some crazy stuff, its basically circular logic used to justify circular logic ad infinitum.

They're all dead. All their children are dead. All their children's children are dead. All their children's children's children are dead. It's not a leap to say that those ideas no longer reside among the living, either.

Not true! You can make a difference on a state level, and states can break their ties with the empire, thus, work to break the ties with the empire at the state level then work to break the ties with the state at an individual level. Then we can all be self-owners and live in peace and prosperity!

This reminds me of the P&T: Bullshit! episode on taxes, and even though I'm against any sort of nationalism-isms, a dude says one I could be down with.

"If there's anything that's 'un-American' to say, it's 'Oh, there's nothing we can do about that'."

Inhale. You control the air supply into your lungs! Your lungs feed energy into your body. Your mind enables you to let reason guide you through this world. We are all our own powerful, self-owning sovereigns! Let our power be known, we will not be subservient to those claiming power over us.

Civil Dis! Civil Dis!

K, next post...

You're don't sound as dumb as you seem to think you are. As for the 'best country' thing, consider...

"Suppose it to be "the best government on Earth", does that prove its own goodness, or the badness of all other governments?"
-Lysander Spooner

Obama Chips...is people!

The only solution I could morally advocate is not re-form but un-form. The controversy right now seems to be (or is painted as) current system, status quo vs. new system, both of which are gov't controlled (just in different degrees and extents). There are those plans I posted below by repubs which aren't getting any attention, but at the same time, I don't care about those either, since I oppose all plans which further gov't power. While vouchers or something of the sort may be better/more efficient than what we have now, I don't compromise. You guys can look into those plans and see if you'd personally prefer them, as they may be more efficient (and if they are, it's likely because they get some gov't thing out of the way). I can only say good luck to such plans.

I don't understand why it would be 'too late' for deregulation. To analogize, just because ending the Fed during the start of the depression still would have left most of America broke doesn't mean its not the best course of action. There's no simple fix to health care — perhaps I should reword that. There is a simple fix, but getting from A to B will not be easy. If all the laws related to health care were repealed tomorrow, you're still looking at a period of market cleansing in which artificially supported services die out and a niche is created to meet the new demand (demand for something different, not necessarily 'additional' demand added to prior demand). Big companies got artificially big with gov't assistance, but with that assistance gone, they'd have to fight to maintain such a position, and that means providing the people with what they want, or face losing such profit to a company that will. Health insurance is a simple concept, a group of people throws into a pot not expecting to face troubles, but in case they do, risk is shared. It was the complication of this simplicity that has caused this mess. Unlike production, where higher output equals less cost per item, insurance is more an accounting business. A few intelligent financiers could feasibly start their own insurance company without the need to reach a certain output in service just to remain profitable.

*I'm not entirely sure I've made this point clearly. If it makes sense, awesome, if not, I can elaborate.

Word.

That's a great idea, but is it moral to force upon everyone else? Also, would such a program be feasible in the marketplace, free from aggression?

Generally, no. Though I imagine circumstances could alter that.

I'd ask, was it moral to interfere in the health care of individuals in the first place to enable such conditions to become standard?

Don't be fatuous, Jeffery.

What's wrong with paying things off as they come? I'm not insured against flat tires, and when I get them, I don't say, "Shit, I'd be a hypocrite to get this fixed because my car insurance doesn't cover tire damage. Guess I can't drive now." What I do is go get it fixed and pay it off as need be. I don't get where you decide its appropriate to bring hypocrisy into this because my belief is not that everything must be insured and where not insured, one cannot seek service. The same applies to medical bills. Going through the windshield costs x-amount to fix. Loans exist, as do savings, as do charity (though I think charity is somewhat inappropriate in this area, complex issue, let's not get into this unless there's major demand for it). Insurance is not the only way to finance expenses, Ozy.

What, volition doesn't exist? If you're young and in good health, you can say, yes, the cost of health care is not worth the risk of getting sick/needing coverage. And it's an assumption on your part that these people have decided that they will 'never' need health care. I never said that. Words do matter. I do not know how to teach you this principle, though I do hope you someday learn it.

As opposed to a celibate one.

Nashua's not a pristine choice, IMO. Too many Massholes in Nash.

Also, when you say people should go live in the mountains, are you implying that if someone who lived in the mountains came to your city with cancer and wanted treatment that you'd say 'no' to them? Because then you're using circular logic to defend your version of ideal health care. You're saying there's a moral responsibility to cover all people, yet 'outsiders' aren't welcome. Either the obligation exists or it doesn't. Either its everyone on Earth or its no one. Limit it to one group (your community) and you're being nationalistic (obviously I'm applying the label broadly, its 'regionistic' if such a word exists). You could say that you want your health thingy run community-to-community for management efficiency's sake, but then you can't start saying outsiders don't apply, because you're creating an artificial difference between your chosen people and the rest of the world. That's always something bad-ism.

Next few posts are on sterilization and such. No comment other than that it wouldn't be a big deal if you weren't forced to pay for it (just like how immigration is a non-issue, the real issue is welfare. If someone's entitled to your charity, it shouldn't matter where they were born.)

Thank you for the input, Pepper. As someone who has dealt with the system, you offer insight that all of us theorizing here would otherwise be ignorant of.

I personally have never dealt with public assistance, but my brother tried years ago to no avail. He became a father at 20, and when his son was around 6 months old, he lost the adequately-paying job that he had in real estate and began doing manual labor for a newspaper in town. When he inquired to see if he qualified for some sort of gov't assistance, he was told that he made too much money. The bureaucrat he met with actually suggested that he quit his job.

My brother did the math and calculated that this would actually net him less money, if he chose to quit his job. This is an anecdotal instance, but it says something about the nature of bureaucracy. An institution is not sustainable that tries to solve a production problem by subsidizing you to produce less.

Don't worry, I won't be changing the topic.

Wow, that's rather drastic for a relatively simple task. It's outrageous that we live in such a society that you feel the need to jump through so many hoops for such a simple service. You may wanna look into docs who go cash only. I know Ron Paul's practice is one of I don't know how many around the country that sustains themselves on incredibly low costs. These docs don't accept medicare or medicaid, and for whatever reason, can afford to charge around $20 per checkup and still be working at a profit (though not a significant profit). Having insurance currently, I've never bothered looking into cash-only docs, but may do so once I'm out of college, which will likely be two or three years from now. I've been contemplating recently underground health insurance companies may be a great counter-economic venture. As stated earlier, the premise of insurance is simple, and if kept simple, would not be difficult to manage. The biggest impediment is properly calculating risk vs. dues. Collect too little, and the pot could empty itself as soon as someone needs a multi-million dollar procedure.

The sucky thing is I would doubt that what you're paying is anywhere near the amount of resources you're consuming.

You like the idea of forcing people to do something they don't wanna do?

Why do people think gov't stuff would be cheaper? Where is this coming from? As stated earlier, gov't can't turn water into wine and expensive health care into cheap health care. There are things that are unnecessarily expensive because gov't manipulates the natural workings of the marketplace. Since the marketplace always seeks equilibrium and efficiency, there is nothing the gov't can do to make something 'more' efficient, besides get out of the way when they are in it.

Gov't people running health care instead of private individuals does not mean the gov't workers are not getting paid. They're be receiving a profit, plus benefits, which in gov't jobs are always more than the market would provide for someone fulfilling the same task.

While I agree, I can't morally force my preference onto the rest of society. Respectively, their mistakes cannot be force onto me (not having insurance when you need it).

To be specific, the hospital is paying for people who use their services without paying them, and thus the hospitals raise prices when those who are willing to pay, do. So really, people who don't use hospitals are not paying for those who don't pay. This plan would force everyone to pay upfront. From a socialist/egalitarian perspective, I see how one would find this theoretically beneficial, but then there's a number of reasons I'm not an egalitarian or a socialist. Also, I say 'theoretically' because there's a number of reasons from the perspective of utility that market alternatives would be preferable, even if the goal is egalitarianism. Simplified, if you are forcing equality, yet retarding progress, you're retarding the potential for 'better' equality (all having more).

You can't be given a right, you naturally have them, and they can only be infringed by others.

Your right to disagree is infringed if you are forced to participate in a program against your will.

Your right to receive the health care of your choice is infringed if you are forced into one system over another.

In essence, you are losing the potential health care you would have received by being forced in, not to mention if you did not wish to invest into health care but rather a different venture entirely, that also is being taken from you.

But people who can't afford insurance are the ones who'd be getting fined. It's a catch-22. All its doing is forcing them to get something they can't afford.

Anyone with a basic understanding of arithmetic should see the a gleaming inconstancy there...

Where is the money from this 'tax credit' coming from? The only way to cover this credit would be to raise taxes elsewhere, which means someone is making less money, meaning if they own a business, prices rise to make up for this, and if they are primarily a consumer, someone else in the marketplace is not getting the money they would have made before the tax was instituted. Again, gov't is incapable of producing or decreasing the cost of anything. All they can do is shift the expenses around and manipulate the natural flow of goods and services in the marketplace. They are solely a destructive force.

He may believe in unicorns for all I care, but he has yet to show how such a system would actually do what he's claiming that it will.

Lines like 'holding insurance companies accountable' sound great, but coming from the gov't, mean nothing. Actions speak louder than words.

I laugh. I cry.

I believe all things should be self-sufficient. Otherwise, they are wasteful. Nothing in gov't is self-sufficient, not even their own budget! Everything in the marketplace must be self-sufficient or it naturally dies out. This is why I'm pro-voluntary exchange, and against coercive exchange.

The thing is over 1000 pages and I doubt anyone discussing it now has read it. It was written by insurance companies, lawyers, and lobbyists. Fines or not, I don't want it.

You went quickly from 'everyone should have insurance' (a preference) to 'there's no excuse not to have it' (obligatory). That's quite a jump. So here, we'll apply Stefan Molyneux's infamous 'Gun in the Room'.

Let's say I, for whatever reason, decide I don't wanna pay into such a system. Perhaps there's a black market policy I've gone in on and do not wish to take part in the program you espouse for. I have an option which satisfies me, which is not your system but another one. So you have an option which satisfies you, and I have one that satisfies me. I would not force you to take part in my system because I consider that immoral. Will you offer me the same respect, in not forcing me to take part in your system? The issue is not whether your preferred system is better than my preferred system, the issue is whether I'm allowed to disagree with you, without getting shot. Not paying the fine leads to more fines leads to arrest leads to prison leads to death (if you refuse prison). All of this is because I disagree with you on a simple issue we could have just as easily agreed to disagree on, and I'd remain alive, doing what I prefer, and you doing what you prefer. Why coercion ever needs to enter the picture I find unjustifiable. This is why I feel you should in the very least be against fining people for not getting health insurance.

If you like the plan, that's your opinion (I don't), but even so I don't understand why you'd prefer the plan fine people for not getting insurance. Are you sure your position is not that you like the plan despite the fact that people can be fined for not getting coverage, and you're defending the fine along with the plan for sake of defending the plan?

Translation: I think being further economically enslaved is worth the free stuff you get from the portion that the masters give back.

Again, where is all this faith that gov't can turn water into wine coming from? They're just forcing you to pay for something you could just buy yourself, and everyone considers this a gift? What am I missing here?

The root question is, why is there a group of people called 'illegals'? Why aren't people treated as equals anyways?

Well, are we all part of some special collective or do we own ourselves? I don't claim ownership over anyone and in exchange ask that no one claim ownership over me. It's absurd to believe that I don't own my own mind and body, yet I have a one/one millionth share over the mind and body of everyone else. Until this irresponsible nonsense can be cleared up, collectivist mantras don't hold water, fucking or no-fucking community.

There is no responsibility that they did not consent to. They own themselves and can do as they please.

This is where collectivism and altruism falls apart. If I want you to be happy, I want you to do what makes you happy. If you want me to be happy, you ought let me do what makes me happy, whether it's healthy lifestyles that do it for me or burgers and beer, its my body, my choice. If we pledged to watch each other's health, we're more likely to make each other healthy and miserable than what we want and fulfilled.

*I'm satisfied with what I've written, but going back, I felt this postscript appropriate for clarification. By saying that we all live in a community, and then making the jump to collectivism, ownership of all over all, one is giving the impression that you're suddenly 'not part of the community' if you're not trying to put yourself into everyone else's business. I'm no less a member of the community because I'm not forcing my views on everyone else. That we do have a relation to each other in a voluntary capacity does not mean our relationship is somehow heightened when we plunder each other. But if by you guises standards plundering is what makes one 'part of the community', I would ask that you not include me in your community, and that all who wish to deal with me do so on a strictly voluntary basis.*

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
-Marcus Twain

It's when they're working together that you should be afraid. Had they never worked to begin with, we'd be living in a free society.

So...it is necessary then?

QFT

Strange...the last post was spam flagged and took a while to post. When it did, the thread didn't automatically bump (so hopefully this will do it).

I think I love you a little bit right now Giggan.

And, on another note, I've never been able to find a doctor that will give a simple check up for less than $120. Tests and follow ups for any thing they may find are even more on top of that.

Damn, Giggan burned me AND the president. I still don't see anything about fines. But I could be wrong.

Alexa wrote:
This whole illegal immigrants thing is ridiculous. You can't deny anyone emergency care. what are you going to do? Let them die on the street?!

The root question is, why is there a group of people called 'illegals'? Why aren't people treated as equals anyways?

Well they aren't equal in this country because they are not citizens! But immigration is a whole 'nother thing that is such a mess it might need it's own thread...

I still believe that we should all look after one another, in anyway possible. If I have to pay more taxes, I will.

Gig, Ill be shorter than you
Most of what I bring up are thoughts and ideas to bounce around, some of your rebuttals were very good, but I have a question for you as a person.
Can one live in a community yet still retain total independence?
I dont know the answer to this. I can argue for both sides.
I know you like to say 'Why not' when it comes to a complete free open market for health care, and I said its probably too late. Unless there is a complete 'blow up' of the system from the top down, that is the only way to accomplish this. You know as well as I that will never happen, hence 'too late'.

Pepper - I will still disagree about eating healthy versusu pirce. I was at the grocery store today and apples were 1.99 a lb, which is usually about two apples. Twinkies come in a box of 14 for $24. .58 for one twinkie versus .99 for one apple. Now if your a family of five and your the poor working class, say a single mother making under thirty thousand a year, what are you going to buy for your kids snacks at scholl? Something that is more expensive and perishable, or something cheap and will last longer in the cupboard?
I worked at a grocery store for years before I was a firefighter, and this is how people shop. When people dont have money, they buy bang for the buck, not health. A bunch of broccoli just doesnt go as far and Mac N Cheese.
Ever buy beer in college? You bought what was cheap, a case of PBR or Lucky lager. You didnt buy a four pack of Dogfish Head at 8.99

Health can't be turned into a free market because by its nature it fails to satisfy the conditions for a free market to function.
1- The demand is very uncertain : it can be partly influenced by your behaviour (drinking, smoking, eating habits etc) but even the most careful people are not beyond an unfortunate turn of event. They too can get a very agressive cancer at an early age and die in 2 years. Anyone can have a severely handicapped kid, be run over by a car or survive many years in one's old age with Alzheimer's disease.

2- Information is incomplete : not everyone can know enough to decide by oneself what the best option is, because we can't all become doctors. That alone makes us dependent on professionals, and even evaluating them to decide which is better is an almost impossible task in itself (except at the fringes, the extremely good and the extremely bad). Specialists simply submitted to free market influences will in general lean in favour of what is more profitable for them (incentives from the industry for example) at the expense of the patients, who are their direct customer, and that in a mostly intraceable way.

3-Very strong interdependence : epidemies spread because regardless of our various behaviours social life requires us to meet people, which makes us interdependent on the health front, which is why public health policies are needed the same way an army is necessary, because you can't defend your home by yourself against extreme invasions.

4-Inelasticity of demand : Gig contends (I haven't read all his stuff, there's a limit to how much absurd logic one can ingest in one day) that the free market would force private companies to offer affordable health care for all because offer is forced to meet demand. The problem is at the extremes, especially when demand is inelastic and uncertain. There will always be poor people who will cost much more than they will bring, and at the other end of the scale, being very rich doesn't mean getting surgery and heavy treatments 10 times more than the average population makes sense.

Finally, counting only on the free feelgod market (aka charity) to provide for the neediest is unfair and downright insulting. It would mean that lives would depend of the just cause of the moment. I don't care for anonymous sick people. I don't want anyone to make me fill guilty and toss in money for their particular case just because they have those big sad eyes and seem so deserving. I just want to know that if something really bad happens to me or to people I care for they will be treated. That's why for me an efficient public health system makes sense.

I've never seen a box of twinkies last more than two, three days tops, in my house. Thank goodness for free and reduced price school lunches I suppose.

I understand where you are coming from, but I have to maintain that it is indeed cheaper to buy those apples. And that comes from personal experience's in my past of being broke as fuck and having kids to feed.

Unfortunately most people do shop this way. I would point the blame mostly on ignorance and partly on a preference for unhealthy food as opposed to healthy/healthier.

It does take a lot more effort to learn how to make a big pot of homemade chili than it does to just buy a can of it. It takes a lot more effort to learn how to cook, and don't mean gourmet culinary skills, but just basic homemade cooking greatly reduces price. I suppose I am fortunate to have time on my hands to put the effort of cooking in.

Also, most people who are poor do not shop at stores like Albertsons or Safeway, they shop at WinCo (Waremart) or Walmart supercenters where apples tend to be about half the price you mentioned.

Knowledge is power. If people took the time to learn what is good for their body and experimented till they found types of healthy food they liked they would be in better health with more enjoyment of their meal times as well. I lose faith in humans sometimes though, so often it seems people are content to not learn anything and just wallow happily in ignorance.

I volunteered at a food bank weekly when I was 22 and 23. I saw more obese people in those lines than in any other type of line I've seen anywhere. I also saw them repeatedly turn down fresh produce on the rare times we had it available. There would usually be just a few families that were highly happy for the produce and the rest specifically turned it down... unless it was potatoes.

Ludwig- always intelligent, great points, Ill get back to you on FB asap.

rossthefireman wrote:

Gig, Ill be shorter than you
Most of what I bring up are thoughts and ideas to bounce around, some of your rebuttals were very good, but I have a question for you as a person.
Can one live in a community yet still retain total independence?
I dont know the answer to this. I can argue for both sides.

It depends what one means by independence (a very lawyer-esque answer, I know).

In the middle of nowhere, I can have a farm which stinks up the surrounding area, and no one's there to care. I can play loud music with no neighbors. I can walk around naked. These luxuries (I wouldn't call them rights) are lost when living in, say, a suburban neighborhood. Stinking up the neighborhood with farm animals, playing loud music, or exposing one's genitals are forms of pollution (of smell, noise, and scenery, respectively).

Driving down a suburban road, you'd have to yield to traffic that you could otherwise pass in the middle of nowhere. Again, I wouldn't called these violations of your 'rights' because you're not being put in a situation against your will. Assuming the road is owned by someone else, you're using it with the permission (implied or otherwise) of the owner.

There's no way to do whatever you want wherever you want, and that's a good thing, this is how order is maintained. For example, in my apartment, I wouldn't allow a guest to smoke cigarettes or cigars, and since no guest is 'forced' into my apartment, this is not a violation of rights. If a law was passed by a third party saying 'you have to smoke one cigarette a day in your apartment', they'd be violating my rights to be the sovereign of my apartment. (And still, I'm only allowed to do whatever my agreement with the landlord stipulates, since I don't own (have permanent control) over the apartment, my control is still restricted to a degree.)

The point is, you limit your freedom everywhere you go in a voluntary way. People happily and voluntarily surrender a great portion of their freedom (options, abilities, potential finances) to enter into the institution of marriage. I consider these amoral decisions (as in, getting or not getting married is not 'right' or 'wrong'). Getting coerced into the institution against your will, or being denied the institution (being prevented from living with/associating with whomever you want) is immoral on the part of the coercive party.

I need to work out my definitions, cause I'm not sure if I should have used 'amoral' or 'non-moral' there. I mean that basically its not a question of morality.

So if by maintaining one's independence, it means maintaining one's ability to say, 'no, thank you', I believe that's certainly possible (I may even go so far as to say that I know it's possible, as it's the basis of my moral outlook), but not the current reality. If it means doing whatever you want, wherever you want, no, that's called chaos, or to define it in less scary terms, a simple lack of order.

It may be harder to do so now then it would have been, but unless the laws of physics change, something sustainable is something sustainable.

I see what you mean that as government gets more and more control over something, the probability of it going non-gov't all of the sudden shrinks. I wouldn't say 'approaches zero' because no governments are permanent.

Like I said about Monkey's presented voucher idea and any others that may be preferable to the current system, I can wish those plans good luck, but I myself would not assist in the establishment of any sort of gov't plan because I don't believe in compromise with something I fundamentally disagree with the existence of. That said, I don't oppose all compromise, but in this instance, I find non-cooperation the highest moral imperative.

One thing I don't want to do though, as I ramble about morality and why I do/don't support something is to come across as a 'holier than thou' type. I understand my views are extreme, and even though I believe they're the most morally imperative beliefs (otherwise I wouldn't hold them) it doesn't mean I expect people to agree with me just because I've stated my case as though that should be the end of it.

Dude, apples are free. Just go to an orchard and don't be greedy and they won't care.

Half-gallons of cheap vodka go for 8-12 FRNs. Mix with powdered lemonade or iced tea and you can get drunk for pennies on the dollar.

I don't understand how this drives medical care from the realm of the market into the necessity of coercion. That medical care costs are inherently prone to unforeseen events doesn't mean it becomes immeasurable for anyone except people calling themselves government to measure. You can average that uncertainty and call it risk, and when that risk reaches a certain height, you'd be wise to insure against such risk.

By your reasoning, car insurance is incapable of being managed by the marketplace (individuals trading on a voluntary basis) because the risk of accidents (your car becoming completely inoperable) or the risk of you owing someone millions of dollars (if you're at fault in a collision) is too high a risk for the market to handle. We could spend hours discussing the reasons why this works in the marketplace, or we could just point to the fact that car insurance currently operates in a fairly unregulated manner.

This is a legitimate point about the necessity of consumer protection, just as the first point was a great point in favor of having insurance, but again does not mean that a flaw has been found in the marketplace which gov't can easily answer.

In the free market, no one is using coercion to prevent you from competing with others for the dollar of potential consumers. In this way, reputation becomes a selling point that elevates you above your competition. A doctor offering shoddy service will have his reputation to worry about. I wouldn't go to a professional of any sort that a trusted friend has had a bad experience with (word of mouth, one of many ways of obtaining feedback about a professional).

Every professional's business is the reputation (or perception, since new businesses don't yet have established reputations) of their own good or service. With consumer protection groups, their service is the judging of other's reputations. Just as reporters push to be the first to get the story (since there is demand for the story) consumer protection groups make a living telling people the truth about businesses. Failure to do so is failure to make a profit, since I wouldn't read reviews from unreputable sources.

You didn't make this point, but people often do in the same way demand that the gov't needs to license doctors since medicine is a skilled field and you don't just want anyone doing it. Because almost everyone doesn't want just anyone practicing medicine is precisely why you don't need gov't licensing. And also, who licenses the licensees? Qualifying the qualifiers can't be done without circular logic (someone's ultimately being given authority without your understanding of how they're qualified). However, if you let people decide what they will and won't trust, good news travels fast and bad news travels faster, and professionals naturally find their niches.

If anyone would like to get into the issue of licensing laws though, I could go on about how they were used to establish monopolies and discriminate against people and such with sources.

I honestly don't understand this point. Are you saying that because we all interact, someone called government needs to tell us how to do so safely? It was my mother who taught me to wash my hands after pooing, and not to share drinks with people, etc. Scientists wouldn't stop studying germs and such in the free market.

Logic is pretty absurd, isn't it?

Companies wouldn't be forced to do anything they don't wanna do. There is a certain amount of business they would have to do to make a profit, but how they make that profit is ultimately up to them. It doesn't help them make profit to exclude a group of people that they could profit from providing a service for, therefore I see no reason that they would not do so, if capable.

If big business doesn't wanna meet demand with supply, than smaller business can, and will.

I don't believe that poverty is some sort of unavoidable epidemic, and a certain quotient of the population will always be below a certain wealth level. That sort of argument is made by those who support the status quo to justify current conditions as somehow ideal, or 'necessary'.

As far as people being 'very rich', there's nothing wrong with having lots of wealth so long as you have justly acquired said wealth. On that point, I wouldn't feel human being outrageously wealthy because it's a waste. As it is, I live on an amount of money that I imagine would define me as poverty level.

I'm glad you've brought up this point, because you've raised a very important question about human nature.

You're saying that people can't be trusted to provide for the less fortunate of their own goodwill...then where exactly does the goodwill come from that you expect people will show in the voting booths?

I don't know if you realize it or not, but you're saying that people are inherently bad, and won't do something good, but if you give them more power and more money they'll decide to do the right thing. Where is that goodwill coming from, and why couldn't it have existed in a non-coercive setting? By saying 'stealing from one and giving to the other is morally superior to just giving to the other', you're saying 'you need to be bad in order to be good'. Care to clarify how this works?

Government is just people. Government people are just as susceptible to corruption as normal people (in fact, I'd say more so since that power tends to attract the filthy and power tends to corrupt as it is). Why would someone in a position of power be more inclined to be generous than anyone else?

So you don't want to help someone voluntarily, but you'd be 'willing' to do it if you didn't have a choice? This is what Ayn Rand called, the "sanction of the victim". Others call it Stockholm.

Or insurance. That's what insurance is, protection in the event of, and I want that too.

If someone starts from the position of not being able to pay a bill, (ie, a tumor is found and needs to be removed, the procedure is 100,000 up front) then you don't need insurance, you need charity. Charity is required when you can't pay for something that you know needs to be paid for. Insurance is covering yourself against what you do not know may spring up. Government, with the help of corporations, has tried to combine the two and has succeeded in making insurance as a service that much more expensive (I covered the insurance/charity distinction somewhere in the superpost, but you mentioned not reading the entire thing, which I don't blame you for).

It's ironic that you should criticise idealism and then go on to suggest that an unrealistic view of the free market and charity can provide universal health-care.

Of course demand for health care increases with availability. This is because the markets don't simply fill demands, it's a two way street. The markets also create demand. To put it another way, there's demand for holidays on the moon, but that hasn't happened yet. What I'm getting at here is that whatever the poorest people in society are willing and able to pay may not be enough to buy them any kind of decent healthcare. You could have people who work full time who still don't have enough money to buy healthcare for their families.

So in a privitised system the elderly, people with pre-existing health problems and people on low incomes are all expected to rely on charity to provide them with a basic human right. And this seems fair to you?

This video has changed my whole outlook on things, I can't believe I was being so selfish about it before.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-...

Perfection, Pepper.

Hey! Look at Minority Whip (R) Cantor talk about shit!

sell all your shit so you can be eligible for government runned medicare! or if you're not eligible, ask a charity to get that belly cancer out!

In my country, if you're sick, you go to the hospital wherever. When it comes to srugery I think that's like totally free until you turn 21... We have to buy our drugs and stuff, but mostly it's free I think.

I heard somewhere USA were becoming Sweden (but a large version of it). That you were going all commie... DUN-DUN-DUUUN! It was in some "Late show with [insert catchy name here]", I think... But seriously, we aren't that most of a commie country. We just recently cahnged our government to right wing. The fact that we had a left wing party for over like 40 years (only once disturbed by one period of right wingers) doesn't change that =D

I love the republicans taking it easy during the finance committee. Just you know, being slow as always talking about nothing but no.

I'll be back in a little bit, but not after some shameless self promotion. I was on Free Talk Live, a nationally syndicated radio show (internationally if you count Trinidad and Tobago) last night for about five minutes talking about a health care forum I attended at USF.

Here's the audio if anyone wants to hear it. I come in at 1:02:18, that's just slightly less than halfway through the mp3 (total time of the show 2:21:46).

http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/FTL2009-09-29.mp3

We should all be scared.