Obama Care Could Be Deadly

HA HA HA!!!! you be dead before you get to even sign up online

Its amazing we can single out and kill a terrorist half a world away or spy on billion of innocent people, yet we can't design a website that runs properly.

I honestly have to wonder if all these "terrorists" we killed are actually terrorist to begin with... 

Couldn't the FBI, NSA or CIA just do the signing for us, considered the gov't LEO already have a database of everyone on file :I

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They would have more luck setting up the health care exchanges on Geocities.

I tried to sign up for health care but I was informed the federal government went over its free Tripod web site bandwidth limit. 

 
Watching live TV (ugh) and just saw a commercial telling folks to go to healthcare.gov.

Why are we paying money to run ads telling people to go to a website that doesn't work?
 
I saw someone online make 2 valid points.

1) Healthcare reform was about more than a website.

2) Theoretically they could have done everything through snail mail and it wouldn't have been any faster than websites that are you know improving.

I would like to add another not-so-valid, the people making the biggest stink about this just happen to be the least objective who were against reform in the first place.

 
Msut77 said:
I saw someone online make 2 valid points.

1) Healthcare reform was about more than a website.

2) Theoretically they could have done everything through snail mail and it wouldn't have been any faster than websites that are you know improving.

I would like to add another not-so-valid, the people making the biggest stink about this just happen to be the least objective who were against reform in the first place.
Click to expand...

Hey! We agree!

1) Indeed. It is actually about giving the federal gov't more power, control, and direct dependency of more of the population.

2) Keep defending a proven failure with everything you've got. Tenacity is a great character trait.

I think those who are making the biggest stink see this as another example of how bloated, broken, inefficient, and downright corrupt our gov't is. I'm all for reform, but taking choices away from Americans is not the way to do it. Eventually, we are going to have to let people live with the repercussions of their decisions. We are waaay too broke to bail out everybody.

 
1) Show your work. Explain how the pre-reform healthcare systems was beneficial, try by comparing it comparing it another countries system. Use some metrics and don't just repeat vague buzzwords.

2) websites can be fixed. In one year the only people who will remember the hiccups are the clueless dead enders.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
1) Show your work. Explain how the pre-reform healthcare systems was beneficial, try by comparing it comparing it another countries system. Use some metrics and don't just repeat vague buzzwords.

2) websites can be fixed. In one year the only people who will remember the hiccups are the clueless dad lenders.
Click to expand...
Is this guy seriously implying that we were worse off pre-obama care? Ok where are his numbers and metrics? All I see is buzzwords.

 
Compared to other countries silky?
Was there a good reason our system cost more to cover less people?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Compared to other countries silky?
Was there a good reason our system cost more to cover less people?
Click to expand...
We are what, top 30? At least we were pre-Obama care. Now we cover "everyone" and yet I expect the quality to go down.

Sure, how about government waste? How about special favors toward biggest campaign donors? You want everyone to be covered? Then healthcare needs to be cheaper, not more expensive. My own plan went up by about 20%.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrsilkunderwear said:
We are what, top 30? At least we were pre-Obama care. Now we cover "everyone" and yet I expect the quality to go down.
Click to expand...
Only if you go to doctors that "everyone" goes to. So a bunch of patient mills pop up that ferret through the checkups and other easy shit (like suddenly now you can get just about any shot at a grocery store, you'd think they found the cure for shingles in the dairy aisle) and that's what Obamacare pays for. What's the problem?

I mean, *I* ain't going to an Obamacare doctor. Are you? Then who cares about the quality of the SR-22 of healthcare? If you value healthcare, you're going to buy your way up past the rabble so who gives a shit?

And if you don't value healthcare...then...who gives a shit?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
Only if you go to doctors that "everyone" goes to. So a bunch of patient mills pop up that ferret through the checkups and other easy shit (like suddenly now you can get just about any shot at a grocery store, you'd think they found the cure for shingles in the dairy aisle) and that's what Obamacare pays for. What's the problem?

I mean, *I* ain't going to an Obamacare doctor. Are you? Then who cares about the quality of the SR-22 of healthcare? If you value healthcare, you're going to buy your way up past the rabble so who gives a shit?

And if you don't value healthcare...then...who gives a shit?
Click to expand...
I give a shit because I do not want to be forced into buying healthcare. I care because my bill went up by about 20%.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
I give a shit because I do not want to be forced into buying healthcare. I care because my bill went up by about 20%.
Click to expand...

Dr Mario Kart said:
There isnt a reality available where you are not forced into buying healthcare for others.
Click to expand...
Do you not see this the same way, Mrs. Wear? You've been buying healthcare for others your entire life and your bill has been going up because of spiraling costs. This is the first serious attempt to deal with it. The hostility on philosophical grounds is understandable but it's reality. Even the Tea Partiest Tea Partier doesn't dare touch old people healthcare which means even they choose to let you pay for that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
speedracer said:
Do you not see this the same way, Mrs. Wear? You've been buying healthcare for others your entire life and your bill has been going up because of spiraling costs. This is the first serious attempt to deal with it. The hostility on philosophical grounds is understandable but it's reality. Even the Tea Partiest Tea Partier doesn't dare touch old people healthcare which means even they choose to let you pay for that.
Click to expand...
Oh I know that ever since I turned 16 and had my job, I started to pay into the system. My taxes went towards medicare, social security and of course war. As I said numerous times throughout several threads, I believe the government has tried numerous times to help the needy but instead only made it worse. This country used to have a strong sense of community at a time but now that is replaced by a large hand of the government which takes from one group and gives it to the other. This is not just immoral but plain inefficient. Why do you think things like lasik surgery keeps dropping in price when other types of surgeries keep rising?

Dr Mario Kart said:
There isnt a reality available where you are not forced into buying healthcare for others.
Click to expand...
As in in this nation or worldwide? Wouldn't you agree that is a problem when we think in such a way?

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Oh I know that ever since I turned 16 and had my job, I started to pay into the system. My taxes went towards medicare, social security and of course war. As I said numerous times throughout several threads, I believe the government has tried numerous times to help the needy but instead only made it worse. This country used to have a strong sense of community at a time but now that is replaced by a large hand of the government which takes from one group and gives it to the other. This is not just immoral but plain inefficient. Why do you think things like lasik surgery keeps dropping in price when other types of surgeries keep rising?
Click to expand...
The idea that the US has historically had a strong sense of community is as much of a myth as Obama being a socialist. I'm sure you can hand pick a few examples which show a great sense of community (ie labor, social justice and helping thy neighbor) but we are no different than any other nation in the world in that respect. I think Obamacare sucks but not because of what is trying to do but rather because of all its shortcomings.

As in in this nation or worldwide? Wouldn't you agree that is a problem when we think in such a way?
Click to expand...
How else would an insurance system work? Your only choice is of many healthy people to subsidize the cost of a few sick ones. Otherwise the system crumbles.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kill3r7 said:
The idea that the US has historically had a strong sense of community is as much of a myth as Obama being a socialist. I'm sure you can hand pick a few examples which show a great sense of community (ie labor, social justice and helping thy neighbor) but we are no different than any other nation in the world in that respect. I think Obamacare sucks but not because of what is trying to do but rather because of all its shortcomings.

How else would an insurance system work? Your only choice is of many healthy people to subsidize the cost of a few sick ones. Otherwise the system crumbles.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with you. I think communities were much stronger during WW2 and Great Depression. Possibly during colonial era as well. Other nations are quite different, I know because I come from another country.

So you are saying that is the only way we can have health insurance? Anything here works for an insurance company? Can you tell me if car, life or home insurance is subsidized by other customers instead of being determined by individual factors?

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
So you are saying that is the only way we can have health insurance? Anything here works for an insurance company? Can you tell me if car, life or home insurance is subsidized by other customers instead of being determined by individual factors?
Click to expand...
All insurance is subsidized by the group. The idea is that most folks who pay for insurance (be it health, auto or home) will rarely use it. For example, if you have never filed an insurance claim, the money (ie premium) you pay every year ends up subsidizing the cost of the claims made by others (also don't forget the profit for the insurance company). That's how insurance works and that's how it has always worked. It is merely a way to mitigate risk by spreading it over the greater whole.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrsilkunderwear said:
I would disagree with you. I think communities were much stronger during WW2 and Great Depression. Possibly during colonial era as well. Other nations are quite different, I know because I come from another country.
Click to expand...
I agree. When faced with adversity we have shown a propensity to unite. That however is not the norm.

 
kill3r7 said:
All insurance is subsidized by the group. The idea is that most folks who pay for insurance (be it health, auto or home) will rarely use it. For example, if you have never filed an insurance claim, the money (ie premium) you pay every year ends up subsidizing the cost of the claims made by others (also don't forget the profit for the insurance company). That's how insurance works and that's how it has always worked. It is merely a way to mitigate risk by spreading it over the greater whole.
Click to expand...
Sure sure, yet it seems you are ok with the rising premiums. Surely you can agree that without unnecessary regulations and government involvement the prices would drop down, including for the very needy.

 
You keep mentioning your premiums rising. Are you claiming it went up 20% in a year or since ACA passed?

You realize premium went up before it was passed right and full implementation hasn't occurred yet?

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Sure sure, yet it seems you are ok with the rising premiums. Surely you can agree that without unnecessary regulations and government involvement the prices would drop down, including for the very needy.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that premiums haven't been going up over the last decade? Because last I checked they have (health care costs rose 170% over the last decade in CA, 62% nation wide). I think it is fair to say that rising premiums are not a direct reaction/response to ACA.

IMO, healthcare is not an area where the free market works well in. The idea of caring for society as a whole (comprehensive healthcare) rich and poor, young and old, does not jive with free markets. The poor are not capable of paying even the lowest of premiums. The old require too much care. That's why such things as medicaid and medicare exist. The government has to step in and subsidize the industry. True "comprehensive" healthcare cannot be done for profit. At the end of the day someone will have to carry the burden of paying these costs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
You keep mentioning your premiums rising. Are you claiming it went up 20% in a year or since ACA passed?

You realize premium went up before it was passed right and full implementation hasn't occurred yet?
Click to expand...
I received a letter sometime in September telling me price will go up sometime early next year and I am pretty sure they mentioned ACA. I wish I kept that letter.

kill3r7 said:
Are you implying that premiums haven't been going up over the last decade? Because last I checked they have (health care costs rose 170% over the last decade in CA, 62% nation wide). I think it is fair to say that rising premiums are not a direct reaction/response to ACA.

IMO, healthcare is not an area where the free market works well in. The idea of caring for society as a whole (comprehensive healthcare) rich and poor, young and old, does not jive with free markets. The poor are not capable of paying even the lowest of premiums. The old require too much care. That's why such things as medicaid and medicare exist. The government has to step in and subsidize the industry. True "comprehensive" healthcare cannot be done for profit. At the end of the day someone will have to carry the burden of paying these costs.
Click to expand...
No, I am not implying that. Yet we can not disregard the fact that ACA does have an effect.

I would have to disagree with you on that. I believe a free market with limited and smart regulations would be the most beneficial form. Unfortunately I do not know of a good example in which a country had an unregulated healthcare but I will say that the quality has decreased in the last 30-40 years as government became more intrusive.

I recently needed a few fillings for my teeth and went to a dentist. She quoted me $3k so I said fuck that and was seriously considering just flying to Asia and getting everything done over there which would still be cheaper after hotel, plane ticket and etc. Instead I did go to Mexico and had it done for $350. And no it was not some shitty place in a dark alley. So it makes on think what exactly is driving up the costs?

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
I received a letter sometime in September telling me price will go up sometime early next year and I am pretty sure they mentioned ACA. I wish I kept that letter.

No, I am not implying that. Yet we can not disregard the fact that ACA does have an effect.

I would have to disagree with you on that. I believe a free market with limited and smart regulations would be the most beneficial form. Unfortunately I do not know of a good example in which a country had an unregulated healthcare but I will say that the quality has decreased in the last 30-40 years as government became more intrusive.

I recently needed a few fillings for my teeth and went to a dentist. She quoted me $3k so I said fuck that and was seriously considering just flying to Asia and getting everything done over there which would still be cheaper after hotel, plane ticket and etc. Instead I did go to Mexico and had it done for $350. And no it was not some shitty place in a dark alley. So it makes on think what exactly is driving up the costs?
Click to expand...
I think you'll have a hard time finding an example of a successful health care system based on free market principles but if you can feel free to share.

 
Ok so mr. wear has an insurance company that decided to get one last increase and blamed Obummer.

How is that evidence of anything?

 
This thread has won my heart over. The fact that we've gotten to the point where the basic functioning and structure of insurance has to be explained. Priceless...

BTW, absolutely love the anecdote about first considering going to "Asia" then Mexico to get healthcare. Was the Mexico trip before or after they started their public run healthcare? Of course that "Asian country" was gonna be one that doesn't have a public run healthcare system, correct? Quick let us now which one that is.

Fact of the matter is nearly every first world country (and even some non-first work countries at this point) already have government run public healthcare options. Thankfully the giant health insurance companies already have the republicans and tea partiers to protect their very existence because we couldn't have the gubment running things, no not at all...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm even talking about the concept of insurance or risk pooling.  I'm talking about fundamentally how reality is constructed.  That casual interconnectedness make it impossible for you to avoid certain negative externality costs.  Even if you're not insured and dont wish to participate in a risk pool, actions of others (like having to seek medical care in an ER followed by medical bankruptcy) are going to be reflected in the cash price of health care should you ever have to use it (which is guaranteed).  Lets pretend that you are immortal and will never have to use the health care system for anything, ever and you also dont have insurance.  Your taxes are paying for some kind of health care subsidy in one system or another at various levels.  They are also paying for the health care of people who are incarcerated, which most but not all people are ok with.  

If you managed to avoid income or payroll taxes, a proportion of various other taxes go to general use, sales tax, trade tariffs (to the extent that we have them), property taxes.  Those taxes are distorting the market prices of things you do happen to buy (in an upward fashion).  There is also the negative externality of crime when people are not able to make ends meet, though we're starting to get real broad here.  The rabbit hole goes deep.  Even before you had to pay for the healthcare and food and lodging of that one guy who stole $1 from a bank so he could get healthcare, he also tied up police and the courts which also costs money.

Should you have to pay for the health care of others?  Perhaps not, but this isnt a very useful question, because theres not a plausible reality where you can avoid it.  The only question is should we all pay more, or less and how?  Every other country has decided that they want to pay less.

 
RedvsBlue said:
Thankfully the giant health insurance companies already have the republicans and tea partiers to protect their very existence because we couldn't have the gubment running things, no not at all...
Click to expand...
Funny. I was pretty sure that virtually everyone who voted to pass this "Affordable Care Act" - which is some kind of twisted government/giant health insurance company collusion - had a (D) after their name...

Dr Mario Kart said:
Those taxes are distorting the market prices of things you do happen to buy (in an upward fashion).
Click to expand...
Yup. And now, folks are seeing their existing plans cancelled, being forced onto higher plans *and* get to pay subsidies for the insurance of other folks (which will be hidden in all those taxes you mentioned so that no one will really be able to estimate the true cost of the "Affordable Care Act"). Pretty genius plan, really.

kill3r7 said:
Because last I checked they have (health care costs rose 170% over the last decade in CA, 62% nation wide). I think it is fair to say that rising premiums are not a direct reaction/response to ACA.
Click to expand...
62% in a whole decade! That seems like a lot...

For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.
Click to expand...
...but not as much as 66% in a single year.

Obviously, this is just one guy's story. Should be interesting to see where the chips fall on this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just can't get past the fact that the gov't can force you to purchase a product versus paying a penalty or tax (what is Obama calling it NOW?). I won't cry if we do go single payer, mainly only the rich will suffer. But does it include a 52% tax on everyone's income? That article I posted about the Netherlands suggested as such. That does include college, some child care costs, vacation money (even for the unemployed!!!) as well as healthcare. I still wish the gov't would not decide what I need to spend my earned money on, but I guess that only works if we allow people to suffer their own poor choices. Freedom to be as selfish, idiotic, and short sighted with your life and money combined with a gov't that will provide other people's money to you from the cradle to the grave seems.......foolish and destructive.

Are the gov't run healthcare countries truly sustainable? I'm not saying our pre ACA system was, but it seems that there would be a tipping point at which it collapses when the tax revenue can no longer sustain the expenditures. Look at the transfer of welfare to disability when we "reformed" welfare. Did we actually accomplish anything or just rename the subsidies to the same people? Also, can people pay with their own money to expedite surgeries or procedures in gov't run healthcare if they feel that the gov't is "rationing"? I like that hard working, successful people can decide their own fates versus having the gov't decide what you can and can not get. It does suck to have to pay for healthcare twice though...

 
UncleBob said:
62% in a whole decade! That seems like a lot...


...but not as much as 66% in a single year.

Obviously, this is just one guy's story. Should be interesting to see where the chips fall on this one.
Click to expand...
And yet premium rates are plummeting ~50% in NY. The reality is that rates will go up for some and down for others. Hopefully it'll be a wash. End result being more people are receiving coverage.

That said, having lived in NYC and North Jersey my entire life, I can tell you that insurance rates are significantly higher here than virtually anywhere else in the US. One of my coworkers who is from St. Louis was shocked at how high his premium rates were. Let's just say he was paying about $150 a month in St. Louis and $660 in NYC (that rate is heavily subsidized by our company).

 
Msut77 said:
Ok so mr. wear has an insurance company that decided to get one last increase and blamed Obummer.

How is that evidence of anything?
Click to expand...
Well I would think an official letter from the insurance company would have some credibility.

RedvsBlue said:
This thread has won my heart over. The fact that we've gotten to the point where the basic functioning and structure of insurance has to be explained. Priceless...

BTW, absolutely love the anecdote about first considering going to "Asia" then Mexico to get healthcare. Was the Mexico trip before or after they started their public run healthcare? Of course that "Asian country" was gonna be one that doesn't have a public run healthcare system, correct? Quick let us now which one that is.

Fact of the matter is nearly every first world country (and even some non-first work countries at this point) already have government run public healthcare options. Thankfully the giant health insurance companies already have the republicans and tea partiers to protect their very existence because we couldn't have the gubment running things, no not at all...
Click to expand...
Is it really a bad thing when we try to break things down in order to clarify the issue at hand?

I do not think you understand what I was trying to argue. As the government becomes more involved and over-regulates the market, the higher the costs will be. Government was involved in the healthcare system for decades but it used to be cheaper so what is changing?

kill3r7 said:
I think you'll have a hard time finding an example of a successful health care system based on free market principles but if you can feel free to share.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but as I mentioned above it seems that prices keep rising as the government is becoming more intrusive. One of the reasons why we had such a boom in the tech market unlike the healthcare is because government has not over-regulated the industry. Would you agree?

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Absolutely, but as I mentioned above it seems that prices keep rising as the government is becoming more intrusive. One of the reasons why we had such a boom in the tech market unlike the healthcare is because government has not over-regulated the industry. Would you agree?
Click to expand...
Disagree. You are comparing apples and oranges. The tech industry does not need to cater to everyone. They can pick and choose their customers. For example, Apple doesn't have to worry about folks who cannot afford their products. It's not their problem. They don't need to cater to them.

The health care industry is the complete opposite. It needs to account for the whole population. in any given year a small percentage of the population accounts for the bulk of the medical costs. These costs must be shared by all with no way of mitigating or eliminating this type of risk. If you were operating in a free market then you would run up against adverse selection. The point where healthy people do not deem it worthwhile to pay for coverage and the only people who are partaking are the sick individuals who have no choice but to seek coverage due to high medical costs. Thus, it is not possible to be inclusive of society as a whole. You cannot cover the medical expenses of every citizen without either incurring major losses or raising premiums to astronomical levels.

I am a strong proponent of the free market in most cases but I just don't think it can work for the health care industry. Simply because it has to cover everyone rich and poor, young and old, and everyone in between regardless of cost or risk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrsilkunderwear said:
Well I would think an official letter from the insurance company would have some credibility.
Click to expand...
You would think wrong.

I was trying to argue. As the government becomes more involved and over-regulates the market, the higher the costs will be. Government was involved in the healthcare system for decades but it used to be cheaper so what is changing?
Click to expand...
Even in universal systems, people are living longer (which costs more) due in part to technology (that costs) more it is a cycle.

However the systems were government is "more" involved. They spend half of what we do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
UncleBob said:
"[...]if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan." [...] "If %5Byou%5D already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance."
Click to expand...
I saw that story on the news. It was interesting because the girl they interviewed who was losing her insurance was originally paying ~$65 /month. And that Obamacare would make her pay ~$200.

My first reaction was "Dang! I want in on this plan!"

And then the news goes on to saying how plans like that don't cover Hospital, Prescriptions, Maternity, etc.... y'know, all the actually expensive stuff that would break your home finances like a twig. The reasons why people buy insurance.

Issues about Obamacare aside, those particular plans sound more like life insurance than health insurance. The only thing I think they cover is doctor's visits, and unless you're a hypochondriac who insists on making visits, you'd probably save more money by not having insurance at all.

 
ACA has tangibly slowed single payer down and further entrenches us in a private system thats going to fail anyway but it keeps it alive longer.  If ACA's intent is to get us to single payer, its a shitty way of doing it.

 
kill3r7 said:
Disagree. You are comparing apples and oranges. The tech industry does not need to cater to everyone. They can pick and choose their customers. For example, Apple doesn't have to worry about folks who cannot afford their products. It's not their problem. They don't need to cater to them.

The health care industry is the complete opposite. It needs to account for the whole population. in any given year a small percentage of the population accounts for the bulk of the medical costs. These costs must be shared by all with no way of mitigating or eliminating this type of risk. If you were operating in a free market then you would run up against adverse selection. The point where healthy people do not deem it worthwhile to pay for coverage and the only people who are partaking are the sick individuals who have no choice but to seek coverage due to high medical costs. Thus, it is not possible to be inclusive of society as a whole. You cannot cover the medical expenses of every citizen without either incurring major losses or raising premiums to astronomical levels.

I am a strong proponent of the free market in most cases but I just don't think it can work for the health care industry. Simply because it has to cover everyone rich and poor, young and old, and everyone in between regardless of cost or risk.
Click to expand...
Lets clarify something real quick, healthcare is not a right. Agreed?

Apple does have to worry about who and who cannot afford their products. That is how business works, if they price it out of the range of consumers, it would lead to loss of revenue and end of the company if they do not change their ways. Health care is a little different due to the fact that you have a government which has a constant stream of revenue regardless of their financials.

There is a flaw in your example, sick people would have a choice if young people decide not to pay for healthcare. They can stay and pay higher premiums but being covered for conditions which may affect them. Or they can pay out of pocket for expenses which would go down in a free market economy because equilibrium would be reached.

I am glad that you embrace the ideas of free markets in other cases and I hope you will see my point when it comes to healthcare. I think Milton Friedman did a study in which showed that between early and late 1990s, for-profit hospitals deacreased from 50% to 10%. During this time spending rose by about 200% and yet cost per patient rose became 15 times higher than needed. Nations like France and Canada have a nationalized health care system and look at them, they are facing many challenges which are crippling them.

Msut77 said:
You would think wrong.

Even in universal systems, people are living longer (which costs more) due in part to technology (that costs) more it is a cycle.

However the systems were government is "more" involved. They spend half of what we do.
Click to expand...
K I guess Ill just write them back and tell em to stop fucking lying and blaming Obama.

I do not understand why you bring up the fact that some of these people live longer, better healthcare is just one of many reasons.

Almost a half, I think it was about 60% more. Which is something I have been trying to explain to many people here. More unecessary government regulations means more bureaucracy meaning inefficiency. Just because some other countries are spending less does not mean they are doing much better. Review the France's health care system.

 
RedvsBlue said:
This thread has won my heart over. The fact that we've gotten to the point where the basic functioning and structure of insurance has to be explained. Priceless...

BTW, absolutely love the anecdote about first considering going to "Asia" then Mexico to get healthcare. Was the Mexico trip before or after they started their public run healthcare? Of course that "Asian country" was gonna be one that doesn't have a public run healthcare system, correct? Quick let us now which one that is.

Fact of the matter is nearly every first world country (and even some non-first work countries at this point) already have government run public healthcare options. Thankfully the giant health insurance companies already have the republicans and tea partiers to protect their very existence because we couldn't have the gubment running things, no not at all...
Click to expand...
Pretty sure nasum and myself have had to explain the concept of risk pools ad nauseam, but as you know, there are always a new batch of morons that can't see the forest for the trees.
 
Why would we agree healthcare is not a right? Is there something sacred about the old system which cost more than any other country to exclude people?

 
Because it is not a human right. You have a few rights including life, freedom and to pursue happiness which can include seeking healthcare for yourself and your family. Stating that healthcare is a right would mean that it is a government's purpose to guarantee it. By believing in it would mean that your right to healthcare would infringe upon my right to liberty as I would be forced to pay for your healthcare. A human right is something you are born with, not something one can give you. 

I do not think you fully read my previous statements. I am not defending today's system, it is broken. I propose a better system and not this ACA crap under which millions of people are going to lose coverage. 

 
Healthcare is performed by people, ie. nurses, doctors, etc. To say that healthcare is a right is to say that you are entitled to the work of these people. They need to be compensated for their services. I would like for the gov't to treat all citizens equally. Why subsidize some people but not others?

Its also BS that we use tax payer money to pay for conditions that people have self inflicted on themselves due to poor choices in diet and lifestyle. Drink yourself to cirrhosis of the liver and spent all your money on a jet ski? The gov't should say "fuck you". Its not Christian, but do we want religion in our politics? The gov't should protect us from others, not ourselves.  Stop rewarding stupidity.

 
Msut77 said:
Stopping you right there a) you will need more than just an assertion and b) you don't find life being a right while defending letting people die because they can't afford medical attention incongruous?
Click to expand...
a) Its not an assertion. This country was founded on the rights I mentioned, not right to healthcare...

b) Its a negative right. You therefore have a right to your life and I can not take it away. It does not mean that I am obligated to save you by paying for someone's medical attention.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top