L@@K! Killer deal! Birth control pills $9/month at Target!!! IN-STOCK
- Thread starter Spokker
- Start date
[quote name='Spokker']Than I'm kind of like a murderer then. I don't want to go to prison 
Why didn't I realize this before it was too late?[/QUOTE]
Murderer is a little harsh. You definitely lie to yourself or enjoy lying to others, which is bad enough in my book.
Why didn't I realize this before it was too late?[/QUOTE]Murderer is a little harsh. You definitely lie to yourself or enjoy lying to others, which is bad enough in my book.
[quote name='Spokker']Are you hurt that I believe an individual mandate is unconstitutional? Are you offended that I don't believe socialist health care, as much of a good idea I believe it may be, is not compatible for American principles? Oh heavens to betsy, I must apologize for this awful atrocity! Call me a moron a few more times to make yourself feel better you very sensitive, tolerant and patriotic American.[/QUOTE]
Yet you voted for Obama and we already have Medicare...
Yet you voted for Obama and we already have Medicare...
[quote name='dohdough']How the 
do you square that with the regressive policies you've been promoting in regards to public utilities and services for the past few days?[/QUOTE]
Yeah. public libraries are bad and government hurt public transportation and not say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
do you square that with the regressive policies you've been promoting in regards to public utilities and services for the past few days?[/QUOTE]Yeah. public libraries are bad and government hurt public transportation and not say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Spokker']I have no clue what you are talking about right now.[/QUOTE]
finally, a glint of truth!
finally, a glint of truth!
[quote name='Msut77']Yeah. public libraries are bad and government hurt public transportation and not say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy[/QUOTE]
The General Motors streetcar conspiracy was popularized by Roger Rabbit but it isn't the reason why they went under. It's called a conspiracy for a reason. Even the streetcar nuts I run around with sometimes aren't all that into the conspiracy.
A good article on the subject: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-46240131/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/
One of the problems with streetcar systems is that some were barred from city councils to raise fares to deal with rising costs. Without fare increases, the systems became dilapidated and lost what little ridership they could hold onto.
The other problem is that streetcars aren't that great when you add cars anyway. Average speeds decreased as car ownership jumped. Many counties are building rail lines again but they are not building streetcars. They are building light rail in dedicated lanes.
[quote name='chiwii']Spokker - do you have health insurance? [/QUOTE]
I have chosen not to get health insurance at this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy[/QUOTE]
The General Motors streetcar conspiracy was popularized by Roger Rabbit but it isn't the reason why they went under. It's called a conspiracy for a reason. Even the streetcar nuts I run around with sometimes aren't all that into the conspiracy.
A good article on the subject: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-46240131/the-gm-trolley-conspiracy-what-really-happened/
One of the problems with streetcar systems is that some were barred from city councils to raise fares to deal with rising costs. Without fare increases, the systems became dilapidated and lost what little ridership they could hold onto.
The other problem is that streetcars aren't that great when you add cars anyway. Average speeds decreased as car ownership jumped. Many counties are building rail lines again but they are not building streetcars. They are building light rail in dedicated lanes.
[quote name='chiwii']Spokker - do you have health insurance? [/QUOTE]
I have chosen not to get health insurance at this time.
[quote name='Spokker']
I have chosen not to get health insurance at this time.[/QUOTE]
Why? You can't afford it, or you would prefer to spend your money on something else?
What will you do if you need an expense treatment? Get the treatment and leave the rest of us to pick up the tab?
I have chosen not to get health insurance at this time.[/QUOTE]
Why? You can't afford it, or you would prefer to spend your money on something else?
What will you do if you need an expense treatment? Get the treatment and leave the rest of us to pick up the tab?
[quote name='chiwii']Why? You can't afford it, or you would prefer to spend your money on something else?[/quote]I could probably afford it but like many people without insurance, I chose to spend my money on something else or save it.
In a couple years, I will probably look at my employer's plans or marry my girlfriend and go on her plan.
Spend my savings.
If I exhaust my savings, then I will likely die or go bankrupt. But then again, the same could happen with insurance.
In a couple years, I will probably look at my employer's plans or marry my girlfriend and go on her plan.
[quote name='Spokker']Spend my savings.[/quote]
I doubt you have enough saved to cover more than a busted finger.
Or we could you know, change the nature of insurance in this country. But you would rather sacrifice your life/health at the altar of the free market.
Does your girlfriend know you refer to her as plan b?
I doubt you have enough saved to cover more than a busted finger.
Or we could you know, change the nature of insurance in this country. But you would rather sacrifice your life/health at the altar of the free market.
Does your girlfriend know you refer to her as plan b?
[quote name='Msut77']I doubt you have enough saved to cover more than a busted finger.[/QUOTE]
About a year ago I went to urgent care to repair a busted toe. It really is an amazing place. Very quick, cheap and efficient. I really liked what I saw there.
[quote name='Msut77']
Or we could you know, change the nature of insurance in this country. But you would rather sacrifice your life/health at the altar of the free market.[/quote]The system we have now is not a free market. This is part of my reluctance to participate. I'll participate in the socialist system if it is declared constitutional. I mean, I'd have no choice, right?
About a year ago I went to urgent care to repair a busted toe. It really is an amazing place. Very quick, cheap and efficient. I really liked what I saw there.
[quote name='Msut77']
Or we could you know, change the nature of insurance in this country. But you would rather sacrifice your life/health at the altar of the free market.[/quote]The system we have now is not a free market. This is part of my reluctance to participate. I'll participate in the socialist system if it is declared constitutional. I mean, I'd have no choice, right?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Somalia has the best health care, clearly. Free market and all, I mean.
[quote name='Spokker']I could probably afford it but like many people without insurance, I chose to spend my money on something else or save it.
Spend my savings.
If I exhaust my savings, then I will likely die or go bankrupt. But then again, the same could happen with insurance.
In a couple years, I will probably look at my employer's plans or marry my girlfriend and go on her plan.[/QUOTE]
I support an individual mandate partially because there are too many people that chose not to take responsibility for themselves and get health insurance. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't mean that your treatment was free. It just means that the rest of us get to pay for it.
Yes, it's still possible to be hit with massive medical bills even though you have insurance, but the PPACA is helping fix some of those issues.
Spend my savings.
If I exhaust my savings, then I will likely die or go bankrupt. But then again, the same could happen with insurance.
In a couple years, I will probably look at my employer's plans or marry my girlfriend and go on her plan.[/QUOTE]
I support an individual mandate partially because there are too many people that chose not to take responsibility for themselves and get health insurance. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't mean that your treatment was free. It just means that the rest of us get to pay for it.
Yes, it's still possible to be hit with massive medical bills even though you have insurance, but the PPACA is helping fix some of those issues.
[quote name='chiwii']I support an individual mandate partially because there are too many people that chose not to take responsibility for themselves and get health insurance. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't mean that your treatment was free. It just means that the rest of us get to pay for it.[/QUOTE]
Bingo, spoks cares not for any noble reason. But because it makes it harder for him to cheat the system.
Bingo, spoks cares not for any noble reason. But because it makes it harder for him to cheat the system.
[quote name='chiwii']I support an individual mandate partially because there are too many people that chose not to take responsibility for themselves and get health insurance. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't mean that your treatment was free. It just means that the rest of us get to pay for it.[/quote]
First of all, it's going to depend on the nature of the situation. The law requires that an emergency room treat me if I'm about to drop dead. I probably have enough savings to cover one of those without declaring bankruptcy. Of course, it depends on what it is.
There is also a situation in which one needs a procedure but will otherwise linger before they drop dead. So let's say there's some $50,000 procedure that I can't afford, well, I don't get it and I die and there's no debt. My estate will easily cover the ambulance charge so the doctor can pronounce me dead.
In any case, I'm not sure why my theoretical bankruptcy is your problem here. When a guy takes out a loan for a sports bar and fails and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
When a family can't make payments on their mortgage and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
What makes having a medical procedure done and not being able to pay different? The entity on the hook is the one that owns the debt and the consequence for the debtor is the decimation of their credit worthiness.
Not sure what the problem is here.
[quote name='Msut77']But because it makes it harder for him to cheat the system.[/QUOTE]
Please point to the law or laws I am breaking. Also point out any rules or regulations I am breaking.
First of all, it's going to depend on the nature of the situation. The law requires that an emergency room treat me if I'm about to drop dead. I probably have enough savings to cover one of those without declaring bankruptcy. Of course, it depends on what it is.
There is also a situation in which one needs a procedure but will otherwise linger before they drop dead. So let's say there's some $50,000 procedure that I can't afford, well, I don't get it and I die and there's no debt. My estate will easily cover the ambulance charge so the doctor can pronounce me dead.
In any case, I'm not sure why my theoretical bankruptcy is your problem here. When a guy takes out a loan for a sports bar and fails and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
When a family can't make payments on their mortgage and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
What makes having a medical procedure done and not being able to pay different? The entity on the hook is the one that owns the debt and the consequence for the debtor is the decimation of their credit worthiness.
Not sure what the problem is here.
[quote name='Msut77']But because it makes it harder for him to cheat the system.[/QUOTE]
Please point to the law or laws I am breaking. Also point out any rules or regulations I am breaking.
[quote name='Spokker']What makes having a medical procedure done and not being able to pay different? The entity on the hook is the one that owns the debt and the consequence for the debtor is the decimation of their credit worthiness.[/quote]
Some guy wanting a loan to start a titty bar vs. a family wanting to keep a child alive.
I have no idea why some people would be offended by your comparison.
One day and this day may never come, you will realize the problem is on your end.
Some guy wanting a loan to start a titty bar vs. a family wanting to keep a child alive.
I have no idea why some people would be offended by your comparison.
One day and this day may never come, you will realize the problem is on your end.
[quote name='Spokker']First of all, it's going to depend on the nature of the situation. The law requires that an emergency room treat me if I'm about to drop dead. I probably have enough savings to cover one of those without declaring bankruptcy. Of course, it depends on what it is.
There is also a situation in which one needs a procedure but will otherwise linger before they drop dead. So let's say there's some $50,000 procedure that I can't afford, well, I don't get it and I die and there's no debt. My estate will easily cover the ambulance charge so the doctor can pronounce me dead.
In any case, I'm not sure why my theoretical bankruptcy is your problem here. When a guy takes out a loan for a sports bar and fails and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
When a family can't make payments on their mortgage and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
What makes having a medical procedure done and not being able to pay different? The entity on the hook is the one that owns the debt and the consequence for the debtor is the decimation of their credit worthiness.
Not sure what the problem is here.
Please point to the law or laws I am breaking. Also point out any rules or regulations I am breaking.[/QUOTE]
You also think shoplifting only affects the store, right?
You're bringing up banks? Seriously? Yes, actually, their bad loans did affect everyone.
There is also a situation in which one needs a procedure but will otherwise linger before they drop dead. So let's say there's some $50,000 procedure that I can't afford, well, I don't get it and I die and there's no debt. My estate will easily cover the ambulance charge so the doctor can pronounce me dead.
In any case, I'm not sure why my theoretical bankruptcy is your problem here. When a guy takes out a loan for a sports bar and fails and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
When a family can't make payments on their mortgage and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
What makes having a medical procedure done and not being able to pay different? The entity on the hook is the one that owns the debt and the consequence for the debtor is the decimation of their credit worthiness.
Not sure what the problem is here.
Please point to the law or laws I am breaking. Also point out any rules or regulations I am breaking.[/QUOTE]
You also think shoplifting only affects the store, right?
You're bringing up banks? Seriously? Yes, actually, their bad loans did affect everyone.
[quote name='Msut77']Some guy wanting a loan to start a titty bar vs. a family wanting to keep a child alive.[/QUOTE]
Kids are not already taken care of?
http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/state/index.html
Kids are not already taken care of?
http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/state/index.html
[quote name='Spokker']Kids are not already taken care of?
http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/state/index.html[/QUOTE]
So, what do you think of CHIP and the federal government's role in it?
http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/state/index.html[/QUOTE]
So, what do you think of CHIP and the federal government's role in it?
[quote name='chiwii']You also think shoplifting only affects the store, right?[/quote]What does this have to do with debt and bankruptcy? Being in debt and declaring bankruptcy is not against the law.
Again, it depends on the situation. If we are talking about a procedure I need but I am otherwise not in danger of dropping dead, I will not be able to have the procedure done. I will die first. No debt. I suffer all consequences. You will not be affected in any way.
If there is an emergency, the law states that an attempt must be made to stabilize me. If I die, then my assets left over will cover the $10 grand or so for the attempt.
This whole thing is silly, though, because if I lived they would probably offer me payment plans and I would pay it off over time. Christ, it's what I'm doing with my student loans, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy, let me add.
And if the nation succeeds in instituting socialized medicine, you get to pay anyway! Why does it even matter?
Clearly, if I am so irresponsible that I cannot be bothered to buy insurance on the open market, or get a job that provides insurance plans, you and others want to make me buy insurance, and if I cannot afford it, subsidize it to a point where I can afford it. It is actually in my best interest to survive until the individual mandate and pre-existing condition mandate go into effect. Why buy now?
We are talking about an individual, me, theoretically declaring bankruptcy because of a medical bill I cannot pay, and whether or not I have a responsibility to you not to get myself into that situation.
Again, it depends on the situation. If we are talking about a procedure I need but I am otherwise not in danger of dropping dead, I will not be able to have the procedure done. I will die first. No debt. I suffer all consequences. You will not be affected in any way.
If there is an emergency, the law states that an attempt must be made to stabilize me. If I die, then my assets left over will cover the $10 grand or so for the attempt.
This whole thing is silly, though, because if I lived they would probably offer me payment plans and I would pay it off over time. Christ, it's what I'm doing with my student loans, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy, let me add.
And if the nation succeeds in instituting socialized medicine, you get to pay anyway! Why does it even matter?
Clearly, if I am so irresponsible that I cannot be bothered to buy insurance on the open market, or get a job that provides insurance plans, you and others want to make me buy insurance, and if I cannot afford it, subsidize it to a point where I can afford it. It is actually in my best interest to survive until the individual mandate and pre-existing condition mandate go into effect. Why buy now?
[quote name='chiwii']So, what do you think of CHIP and the federal government's role in it?[/QUOTE]Health care for children is something that states already design and administer. Not sure how the federal government makes it better or more efficient.
I've always wondered about the dynamic at the eligibility thresholds. I wonder if the families just under the threshold have a much better quality of life than those families just over the threshold and do not qualify. The vast majority of newly uninsured children in this country are "middle-class" and they don't qualify for these programs.
I've always wondered about the dynamic at the eligibility thresholds. I wonder if the families just under the threshold have a much better quality of life than those families just over the threshold and do not qualify. The vast majority of newly uninsured children in this country are "middle-class" and they don't qualify for these programs.
[quote name='Spokker']What does this have to do with debt and bankruptcy? Being in debt and declaring bankruptcy is not against the law.
We are talking about an individual, me, theoretically declaring bankruptcy because of a medical bill I cannot pay, and whether or not I have a responsibility to you not to get myself into that situation.
Again, it depends on the situation. If we are talking about a procedure I need but I am otherwise not in danger of dropping dead, I will not be able to have the procedure done. I will die first. No debt. I suffer all consequences. You will not be affected in any way.
If there is an emergency, the law states that an attempt must be made to stabilize me. If I die, then my assets left over will cover the $10 grand or so for the attempt.
This whole thing is silly, though, because if I lived they would probably offer me payment plans and I would pay it off over time. Christ, it's what I'm doing with my student loans, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy, let me add.
And if the nation succeeds in instituting socialized medicine, you get to pay anyway! Why does it even matter?[/QUOTE]
This is very simple, and has nothing to do with whether something is against the law. Hospitals charge the paying customers and their insurers more to cover their losses.
I'd love to see the payment plan for something like an organ transplant.
I already pay fo my health insurance. If we had socialized medicine, you would be paying, too.
We are talking about an individual, me, theoretically declaring bankruptcy because of a medical bill I cannot pay, and whether or not I have a responsibility to you not to get myself into that situation.
Again, it depends on the situation. If we are talking about a procedure I need but I am otherwise not in danger of dropping dead, I will not be able to have the procedure done. I will die first. No debt. I suffer all consequences. You will not be affected in any way.
If there is an emergency, the law states that an attempt must be made to stabilize me. If I die, then my assets left over will cover the $10 grand or so for the attempt.
This whole thing is silly, though, because if I lived they would probably offer me payment plans and I would pay it off over time. Christ, it's what I'm doing with my student loans, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy, let me add.
And if the nation succeeds in instituting socialized medicine, you get to pay anyway! Why does it even matter?[/QUOTE]
This is very simple, and has nothing to do with whether something is against the law. Hospitals charge the paying customers and their insurers more to cover their losses.
I'd love to see the payment plan for something like an organ transplant.
I already pay fo my health insurance. If we had socialized medicine, you would be paying, too.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Spokker']
When a family can't make payments on their mortgage and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
What makes having a medical procedure done and not being able to pay different? The entity on the hook is the one that owns the debt and the consequence for the debtor is the decimation of their credit worthiness.
Not sure what the problem is here.
[/QUOTE]
I would imagine the cost is passed on to the people who do have the ability to pay. I mean, someone has to pay for it, don't they?
When a family can't make payments on their mortgage and declares bankruptcy, you get to pay for it?
What makes having a medical procedure done and not being able to pay different? The entity on the hook is the one that owns the debt and the consequence for the debtor is the decimation of their credit worthiness.
Not sure what the problem is here.
[/QUOTE]
I would imagine the cost is passed on to the people who do have the ability to pay. I mean, someone has to pay for it, don't they?
[quote name='soulvengeance']I would imagine the cost is passed on to the people who do have the ability to pay. I mean, someone has to pay for it, don't they?[/QUOTE]
This is true no matter what you declare bankruptcy for. If we were so concerned about this, why allow people to discharge their debts?
This is true no matter what you declare bankruptcy for. If we were so concerned about this, why allow people to discharge their debts?
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Spokker']This is true no matter what you declare bankruptcy for. If we were so concerned about this, why allow people to discharge their debts?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I never said we should allow people to discharge their debts. You were asking why it should matter, I was just commenting on why I thought it mattered.
Yeah, but I never said we should allow people to discharge their debts. You were asking why it should matter, I was just commenting on why I thought it mattered.
Interestingly enough, over 75% of those who do declare bankruptcy due to medical bills have health insurance.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/...ls-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
This was *before* the recession. So I guess I'll save some money in the meantime since I'll be declaring bankruptcy anyway.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/...ls-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
This was *before* the recession. So I guess I'll save some money in the meantime since I'll be declaring bankruptcy anyway.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Spokker']Interestingly enough, over 75% of those who do declare bankruptcy due to medical bills have health insurance.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/...ls-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
This was *before* the recession. So I guess I'll save some money in the meantime since I'll be declaring bankruptcy anyway.[/QUOTE]
You don't have health insurance?
If you can't afford it then I feel sorry for you and I'll fight for your right to health insurance.
If you can then.. well we can argue about politics all day but that's really not smart. "I'll just declare bankruptcy" is not a plan. Well - maybe it's a plan but it's a dumbass plan.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/...ls-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
This was *before* the recession. So I guess I'll save some money in the meantime since I'll be declaring bankruptcy anyway.[/QUOTE]
You don't have health insurance?
If you can't afford it then I feel sorry for you and I'll fight for your right to health insurance.
If you can then.. well we can argue about politics all day but that's really not smart. "I'll just declare bankruptcy" is not a plan. Well - maybe it's a plan but it's a dumbass plan.
[quote name='Spokker']This whole thing is silly, though, because if I lived they would probably offer me payment plans and I would pay it off over time. Christ, it's what I'm doing with my student loans, which can't be discharged in bankruptcy, let me add.[/QUOTE]
I'm not surprised you guys missed this little gem in the mountain of shit of his posts.
Who wants to bet that some of those loans are subsidized and "socialist?"
Another interesting observation is how good the right is at framing the narrative by describing any government-run program they don't like as "socialist." You sure don't hear them harping about the most socialist organization around, the military.
I'm not surprised you guys missed this little gem in the mountain of shit of his posts.
Who wants to bet that some of those loans are subsidized and "socialist?"
Another interesting observation is how good the right is at framing the narrative by describing any government-run program they don't like as "socialist." You sure don't hear them harping about the most socialist organization around, the military.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']I'm not surprised you guys missed this little gem in the mountain of shit of his posts.
Who wants to bet that some of those loans are subsidized and "socialist?"
Another interesting observation is how good the right is at framing the narrative by describing any government-run program they don't like as "socialist." You sure don't hear them harping about the most socialist organization around, the military.[/QUOTE]
Your first two sentences are spot-on, nailing him to the wall.
But calling the military socialist - that's a stretch. Those folks sacrifice alot and don't get paid much. Part of their compensation is definately the benefits. And alot of the time the services resemble those provided by a corporation to it's employees - cutrate and substandard.
Who wants to bet that some of those loans are subsidized and "socialist?"
Another interesting observation is how good the right is at framing the narrative by describing any government-run program they don't like as "socialist." You sure don't hear them harping about the most socialist organization around, the military.[/QUOTE]
Your first two sentences are spot-on, nailing him to the wall.
But calling the military socialist - that's a stretch. Those folks sacrifice alot and don't get paid much. Part of their compensation is definately the benefits. And alot of the time the services resemble those provided by a corporation to it's employees - cutrate and substandard.
[quote name='camoor']Your first two sentences are spot-on, nailing him to the wall.
But calling the military socialist - that's a stretch. Those folks sacrifice alot and don't get paid much. Part of their compensation is definately the benefits. And alot of the time the services resemble those provided by a corporation to it's employees - cutrate and substandard.[/QUOTE]
Oh no doubt. I was just sarcstically applying their definition of the word "socialist," which is so broad that it's practically meaningless.
But calling the military socialist - that's a stretch. Those folks sacrifice alot and don't get paid much. Part of their compensation is definately the benefits. And alot of the time the services resemble those provided by a corporation to it's employees - cutrate and substandard.[/QUOTE]
Oh no doubt. I was just sarcstically applying their definition of the word "socialist," which is so broad that it's practically meaningless.
spoker really wowed me with his well thought out reasoning.
I wonder if he will even try to refute this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html
I wonder if he will even try to refute this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html
[quote name='dohdough']
Who wants to bet that some of those loans are subsidized and "socialist?"[/quote]Haha, the loans are socialist but they are giant handouts to Sallie Mae, not students.
A good infographic about it: http://www.collegescholarships.org/research/student-loan-scheme.jpg
This is a consequence of federal involvement in student loans and part of the reason why the cost of education is so high.
[quote name='Msut77']
I wonder if he will even try to refute this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html[/QUOTE]
Refute what? I told you that other first-world nations spend less and get better results than we do. I was the one who linked to Sick Around the World explaining just that. My argument is that an individual mandate is unconstitutional and I cited a poll that suggests most Americans, even ones who support socialized medicine, agree with me.
Of course, the French system isn't perfect. They are dealing with rising costs and health care watchers are wondering how long it will last.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/30/the-myth-of-free-market-health
Who wants to bet that some of those loans are subsidized and "socialist?"[/quote]Haha, the loans are socialist but they are giant handouts to Sallie Mae, not students.
A good infographic about it: http://www.collegescholarships.org/research/student-loan-scheme.jpg
This is a consequence of federal involvement in student loans and part of the reason why the cost of education is so high.
I am completely for reigning in military spending and ending our foreign entanglements. National defense, on the other hand, is a public good and a function of the federal government.
[quote name='Msut77']
I wonder if he will even try to refute this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html[/QUOTE]
Refute what? I told you that other first-world nations spend less and get better results than we do. I was the one who linked to Sick Around the World explaining just that. My argument is that an individual mandate is unconstitutional and I cited a poll that suggests most Americans, even ones who support socialized medicine, agree with me.
Of course, the French system isn't perfect. They are dealing with rising costs and health care watchers are wondering how long it will last.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/30/the-myth-of-free-market-health
As for the United States, there is no one problem that causes high health care costs. The whole system is to blame and it must further in one direction, free-market, or the other, socialism. However, one is more palpable than the other in America.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']Haha, the loans are socialist but they are giant handouts to Sallie Mae, not students.
A good infographic about it: http://www.collegescholarships.org/research/student-loan-scheme.jpg
This is a consequence of federal involvement in student loans and part of the reason why the cost of education is so high.
I am completely for reigning in military spending and ending our foreign entanglements. National defense, on the other hand, is a public good and a function of the federal government.[/QUOTE]
So education isn't a public good? You also seem to have no idea how higher education is funded. I'm not surprised.
You seem to be throwing around the word "socialism" a lot...I'd love to be humored by your incorrect definition of it.
Sure does sound like you're a fair-weather socialist though.
A good infographic about it: http://www.collegescholarships.org/research/student-loan-scheme.jpg
This is a consequence of federal involvement in student loans and part of the reason why the cost of education is so high.
I am completely for reigning in military spending and ending our foreign entanglements. National defense, on the other hand, is a public good and a function of the federal government.[/QUOTE]
So education isn't a public good? You also seem to have no idea how higher education is funded. I'm not surprised.
You seem to be throwing around the word "socialism" a lot...I'd love to be humored by your incorrect definition of it.
Sure does sound like you're a fair-weather socialist though.
[quote name='Spokker'] I was the one who linked to Sick Around the World explaining just that.[/QUOTE]
I was using Sick Around the World as a resource years ago.
I asked you to construct an argument defending your position without resorting to (what you think you know) regarding the constitutionality.
Try to answer without lies or misdirection.
I was using Sick Around the World as a resource years ago.
I asked you to construct an argument defending your position without resorting to (what you think you know) regarding the constitutionality.
Try to answer without lies or misdirection.
[quote name='Spokker']
As for the United States, there is no one problem that causes high health care costs. The whole system is to blame and it must further in one direction, free-market, or the other, socialism. However, one is more palpable than the other in America.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how this free-market health care system would work? I assume that there would still be health insurance, but that there woudn't be any government regulation of it. There also wouldn't be Medicare or Medicaid programs. Charities would hopefully help out anyone that the insurance companies won't cover (the elderly, sick, and poor). Is this correct?
As for the United States, there is no one problem that causes high health care costs. The whole system is to blame and it must further in one direction, free-market, or the other, socialism. However, one is more palpable than the other in America.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how this free-market health care system would work? I assume that there would still be health insurance, but that there woudn't be any government regulation of it. There also wouldn't be Medicare or Medicaid programs. Charities would hopefully help out anyone that the insurance companies won't cover (the elderly, sick, and poor). Is this correct?
[quote name='chiwii']Can you explain how this free-market health care system would work?[/QUOTE]
When people advocate for a free-market health care system they don't all mean the same thing, of course. There are disagreements and debates over what exactly such a system should be, just as there are disagreements and debates over the various components of a socialized system. Among libertarians in general, there is much disagreement over this and that.
I'm partial to the ideas put forth by Richard Epstein. Here's an easily digestible rundown of his plan.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Free-Market-Reforms-For-Health-Care
But in general, I think it should be treated like insurance, not an open-ended benefit package. Competition should be encouraged, not discouraged. We should move away from the employer-based coverage. It makes no sense to tie health care to a job. Many people stick with a job for the purpose of health care, and workers should be as mobile as possible in order to allocate their labor in the most efficient manner possible. This would also instantly take care of issues related to the original subject of this thread.
Here is a video of him speaking as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRut_LTJpwI
When people advocate for a free-market health care system they don't all mean the same thing, of course. There are disagreements and debates over what exactly such a system should be, just as there are disagreements and debates over the various components of a socialized system. Among libertarians in general, there is much disagreement over this and that.
I'm partial to the ideas put forth by Richard Epstein. Here's an easily digestible rundown of his plan.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Free-Market-Reforms-For-Health-Care
But in general, I think it should be treated like insurance, not an open-ended benefit package. Competition should be encouraged, not discouraged. We should move away from the employer-based coverage. It makes no sense to tie health care to a job. Many people stick with a job for the purpose of health care, and workers should be as mobile as possible in order to allocate their labor in the most efficient manner possible. This would also instantly take care of issues related to the original subject of this thread.
Here is a video of him speaking as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRut_LTJpwI
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='chiwii']Can you explain how this free-market health care system would work?[/QUOTE]
He won't provide a real answer.
It is like having a discussion on the pros and cons of various sources of energy and having someone choose perpetual motion machines.
He won't provide a real answer.
It is like having a discussion on the pros and cons of various sources of energy and having someone choose perpetual motion machines.
[quote name='Spokker']When people advocate for a free-market health care system they don't all mean the same thing, of course. There are disagreements and debates over what exactly such a system should be, just as there are disagreements and debates over the various components of a socialized system. Among libertarians in general, there is much disagreement over this and that.
I'm partial to the ideas put forth by Richard Epstein. Here's an easily digestible rundown of his plan.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Free-Market-Reforms-For-Health-Care
But in general, I think it should be treated like insurance, not an open-ended benefit package. Competition should be encouraged, not discouraged. We should move away from the employer-based coverage. It makes no sense to tie health care to a job. Many people stick with a job for the purpose of health care, and workers should be as mobile as possible in order to allocate their labor in the most efficient manner possible. This would also instantly take care of issues related to the original subject of this thread.
Here is a video of him speaking as well: [/QUOTE]
WTF. There is no framework in your pathetic excuse of an article beyond "remove all regulations becasue FREE MARKET!" Holy balls, did you even see that part where the author liked Mitch Daniels' idea about giving CASH to families in need? Did you even READ the editorial?
edit:
[quote name='Msut77']He won't provide a real answer.
It is like having a discussion on the pros and cons of various sources of energy and having someone choose perpetual motion machines.[/QUOTE]
Welp.
/thread
I'm partial to the ideas put forth by Richard Epstein. Here's an easily digestible rundown of his plan.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Free-Market-Reforms-For-Health-Care
But in general, I think it should be treated like insurance, not an open-ended benefit package. Competition should be encouraged, not discouraged. We should move away from the employer-based coverage. It makes no sense to tie health care to a job. Many people stick with a job for the purpose of health care, and workers should be as mobile as possible in order to allocate their labor in the most efficient manner possible. This would also instantly take care of issues related to the original subject of this thread.
Here is a video of him speaking as well: [/QUOTE]
WTF. There is no framework in your pathetic excuse of an article beyond "remove all regulations becasue FREE MARKET!" Holy
balls, did you even see that part where the author liked Mitch Daniels' idea about giving CASH to families in need? Did you even READ the editorial?edit:
[quote name='Msut77']He won't provide a real answer.
It is like having a discussion on the pros and cons of various sources of energy and having someone choose perpetual motion machines.[/QUOTE]
Welp.
/thread
[quote name='dohdough'] Did you even READ the editorial?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. I read it, agreed with it and posted a link to it. The video is also quite well done.
If you want more details and information, go ahead and research the subject yourself. I posted an easily digestible and short bit on the subject. There are exceptions, but I try not to post links of walls of texts that nobody is going to read anyway.
I'm going to go take a dump and listen to the whole video again, actually. I really like this guy's ideas.
[/QUOTE]
Yes. I read it, agreed with it and posted a link to it. The video is also quite well done.
If you want more details and information, go ahead and research the subject yourself. I posted an easily digestible and short bit on the subject. There are exceptions, but I try not to post links of walls of texts that nobody is going to read anyway.
I'm going to go take a dump and listen to the whole video again, actually. I really like this guy's ideas.
[quote name='Spokker']Yes. I read it, agreed with it and posted a link to it. The video is also quite well done.[/QUOTE]
"Too many regulations so kill them all" is not a goddamn framework for how a free market system would work and doesn't address the question that was asked.
As for doing research on my own? I will not conduct a literature review for you without payment.
"Too many regulations so kill them all" is not a goddamn framework for how a free market system would work and doesn't address the question that was asked.
You posted a worthless turd just like the one you're about to flush down the toilet. If your link was so simple and easy to understand, then you should be able to post something of value instead of having a link do the arguing for you.
As for doing research on my own? I will not conduct a literature review for you without payment.
[quote name='Spokker']
But in general, I think it should be treated like insurance, not an open-ended benefit package. Competition should be encouraged, not discouraged. We should move away from the employer-based coverage. It makes no sense to tie health care to a job. Many people stick with a job for the purpose of health care, and workers should be as mobile as possible in order to allocate their labor in the most efficient manner possible. This would also instantly take care of issues related to the original subject of this thread.[/QUOTE]
What sort of insurance are you looking for? Do you want to spend $10,000/year on medical care before your insurance starts paying? Then get a high deductible plan. The government isn't stopping you.
I agree that health insurance shouldn't be tied to a job. What do you think should be done about it? Should the federal government make it illegal for employers to provide health insurance as a benefit?
But, what about the big socialized programs, like Medicare and Medicaid? What about the people that the insurance companies refuse to cover because they won't be profitable? How are they handled in your free market system?
But in general, I think it should be treated like insurance, not an open-ended benefit package. Competition should be encouraged, not discouraged. We should move away from the employer-based coverage. It makes no sense to tie health care to a job. Many people stick with a job for the purpose of health care, and workers should be as mobile as possible in order to allocate their labor in the most efficient manner possible. This would also instantly take care of issues related to the original subject of this thread.[/QUOTE]
What sort of insurance are you looking for? Do you want to spend $10,000/year on medical care before your insurance starts paying? Then get a high deductible plan. The government isn't stopping you.
I agree that health insurance shouldn't be tied to a job. What do you think should be done about it? Should the federal government make it illegal for employers to provide health insurance as a benefit?
But, what about the big socialized programs, like Medicare and Medicaid? What about the people that the insurance companies refuse to cover because they won't be profitable? How are they handled in your free market system?
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']
As for doing research on my own? I will not conduct a literature review for you without payment.[/QUOTE]
I'm not asking you to post anything for my benefit. The suggestion to do your own research is simply for your own curiosity and enjoyment, if you would like.
As for doing research on my own? I will not conduct a literature review for you without payment.[/QUOTE]
I'm not asking you to post anything for my benefit. The suggestion to do your own research is simply for your own curiosity and enjoyment, if you would like.
[quote name='chiwii']What sort of insurance are you looking for? Do you want to spend $10,000/year on medical care before your insurance starts paying? Then get a high deductible plan. The government isn't stopping you.[/quote]There's definitely an illusion of choice in the health insurance industry. An interesting article about that concept is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/09/the-illusion-of-choice/24609/
I think her point about the current system being unworkable and not worth saving is right. Anything would be better than what we have now. The status quo is not the answer but I feel that is going to be the outcome.
It's doubtful that we'll be able to go in either direction toward a more free-market system or a more socialist system. Either approach would be better than what we have now, though. I think what we'll have in the future is simply more of the same, high costs. The president's plan probably won't change that.
If we do move toward a more free-market system, there may be savings associated with deregulation. Attempts have been made to count up the costs and benefits of regulation: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2004/10/cost_of_health.html
It's a very difficult issue to look at when you're talking about a person who cannot pay but needs thousands or perhaps millions in medical care to remain living. You could look at questions of what the value of a few extra years of life for an individual is versus what that money could do for multiple people and things of that nature. It's not something many people want to think about though.
We absolutely should place a monetary value on human life, however, and I admire the people who do so despite the practice being a very unpopular and emotional thing for most people.
I think her point about the current system being unworkable and not worth saving is right. Anything would be better than what we have now. The status quo is not the answer but I feel that is going to be the outcome.
I don't know but it's a very difficult thing to change because people report being very happy with their employer provided plans. I guess you would have to convince people that an alternative is more efficient.
It's doubtful that we'll be able to go in either direction toward a more free-market system or a more socialist system. Either approach would be better than what we have now, though. I think what we'll have in the future is simply more of the same, high costs. The president's plan probably won't change that.
If we do move toward a more free-market system, there may be savings associated with deregulation. Attempts have been made to count up the costs and benefits of regulation: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2004/10/cost_of_health.html
Well, at that point we aren't really talking about insurance anymore but welfare and redistribution of wealth more or less. After all, it isn't insurance if we are talking about a 100% certain outcome of an illness occurring (it's already occurring).
It's a very difficult issue to look at when you're talking about a person who cannot pay but needs thousands or perhaps millions in medical care to remain living. You could look at questions of what the value of a few extra years of life for an individual is versus what that money could do for multiple people and things of that nature. It's not something many people want to think about though.
We absolutely should place a monetary value on human life, however, and I admire the people who do so despite the practice being a very unpopular and emotional thing for most people.
StarKnightX
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 234 (100%)
[quote name='Spokker'] I don't know but it's a very difficult thing to change because people report being very happy with their employer provided plans. I guess you would have to convince people that an alternative is more efficient.[/quote]
Not gonna disagree with you on this , since I don't know exactly what the numbers on that might be , but despite working at a company with what many people say has a really good benefits package I don't know many co-workers who wouldn't choose a non-employer tied health care plan if a cost and quality comparable plan was available.
On a side note to that , last year they raised the hour requirements of employees to be eligible for the company plans from 1000 work credit hours to 1500 , and this year they eliminated the HMO plan leaving only the PPO plan as an option for medical care (after just a year or two ago nearly doubling the rates of the HMO plan). They sited cost and lack of employee interest as the main reasons.
The problem with that is who's doing the valuing?
Edit:Tried making some analogies to value of life but didn't like the way they sounded. But I will say that it's one thing to say or think things like "well that person is a worthless sack of shit that contributes nothing to society" but its another thing to believe that the aforementioned "worthless sack of shit" doesn't deserve medical care just because of that.
Not gonna disagree with you on this , since I don't know exactly what the numbers on that might be , but despite working at a company with what many people say has a really good benefits package I don't know many co-workers who wouldn't choose a non-employer tied health care plan if a cost and quality comparable plan was available.
On a side note to that , last year they raised the hour requirements of employees to be eligible for the company plans from 1000 work credit hours to 1500 , and this year they eliminated the HMO plan leaving only the PPO plan as an option for medical care (after just a year or two ago nearly doubling the rates of the HMO plan). They sited cost and lack of employee interest as the main reasons.
The problem with that is who's doing the valuing?
Edit:Tried making some analogies to value of life but didn't like the way they sounded. But I will say that it's one thing to say or think things like "well that person is a worthless sack of shit that contributes nothing to society" but its another thing to believe that the aforementioned "worthless sack of shit" doesn't deserve medical care just because of that.
[quote name='Spokker']There's definitely an illusion of choice in the health insurance industry. An interesting article about that concept is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/09/the-illusion-of-choice/24609/
I think her point about the current system being unworkable and not worth saving is right. Anything would be better than what we have now. The status quo is not the answer but I feel that is going to be the outcome.
[/QUOTE]
What does a company offering their employees an HMO have to do with you purchasing a high deductible plan?
[quote name='Spokker']
I don't know but it's a very difficult thing to change because people report being very happy with their employer provided plans. I guess you would have to convince people that an alternative is more efficient.
[/QUOTE]
So, the consumers have spoken, and they like their employer provided coverage. I'm really not sure why you mentioned "moving away from employer based coverage" as an element of your free market system.
[quote name='Spokker']
Well, at that point we aren't really talking about insurance anymore but welfare and redistribution of wealth more or less. After all, it isn't insurance if we are talking about a 100% certain outcome of an illness occurring (it's already occurring).
[/QUOTE]
I thought we were talking about the entire health care system, not just insurance. So, let me get this straight - you think we should deregulate health insurance, but keep socialized medicine for the poor, elderly, sick, and uninsurable? Is that what you're suggesting for your free market system?
[quote name='Spokker']
It's a very difficult issue to look at when you're talking about a person who cannot pay but needs thousands or perhaps millions in medical care to remain living. You could look at questions of what the value of a few extra years of life for an individual is versus what that money could do for multiple people and things of that nature. It's not something many people want to think about though.
We absolutely should place a monetary value on human life, however, and I admire the people who do so despite the practice being a very unpopular and emotional thing for most people.[/QUOTE]
It's easy to say this when it isn't you or someone close to you in the situation.
I think her point about the current system being unworkable and not worth saving is right. Anything would be better than what we have now. The status quo is not the answer but I feel that is going to be the outcome.
[/QUOTE]
What does a company offering their employees an HMO have to do with you purchasing a high deductible plan?
[quote name='Spokker']
I don't know but it's a very difficult thing to change because people report being very happy with their employer provided plans. I guess you would have to convince people that an alternative is more efficient.
[/QUOTE]
So, the consumers have spoken, and they like their employer provided coverage. I'm really not sure why you mentioned "moving away from employer based coverage" as an element of your free market system.
[quote name='Spokker']
Well, at that point we aren't really talking about insurance anymore but welfare and redistribution of wealth more or less. After all, it isn't insurance if we are talking about a 100% certain outcome of an illness occurring (it's already occurring).
[/QUOTE]
I thought we were talking about the entire health care system, not just insurance. So, let me get this straight - you think we should deregulate health insurance, but keep socialized medicine for the poor, elderly, sick, and uninsurable? Is that what you're suggesting for your free market system?
[quote name='Spokker']
It's a very difficult issue to look at when you're talking about a person who cannot pay but needs thousands or perhaps millions in medical care to remain living. You could look at questions of what the value of a few extra years of life for an individual is versus what that money could do for multiple people and things of that nature. It's not something many people want to think about though.
We absolutely should place a monetary value on human life, however, and I admire the people who do so despite the practice being a very unpopular and emotional thing for most people.[/QUOTE]
It's easy to say this when it isn't you or someone close to you in the situation.
[quote name='StarKnightX']
The problem with that is who's doing the valuing?
Edit:Tried making some analogies to value of life but didn't like the way they sounded. But I will say that it's one thing to say or think things like "well that person is a worthless sack of shit that contributes nothing to society" but its another thing to believe that the aforementioned "worthless sack of shit" doesn't deserve medical care just because of that.[/QUOTE]
I doubt such thinking would be in "sack of shit" units. But you ask the million dollar question. Who does the valuing? I think someone has to do it though (and they do) and I don't envy them. It should most likely be done in a calculated and formulaic process. Actuaries can make very good money.
We also reveal how much we value human life based on the actions we take. For example, we can study how much an increase in a speed limit in a state increases fatal accidents. Then we can calculate the monetary value of the time benefits of the speed limit increase and compare it to the increase in traffic fatalities. Using such a method (clearly more complicated than what I just described), the value of the statistical life that they came up with was $1.5 million in 1997 dollars, which is way below what economists usually come up with.
I guess you should tread lightly in Indiana...
[quote name='chiwii']
It's easy to say this when it isn't you or someone close to you in the situation.[/QUOTE]Which is why those people do not make those decisions. If your grandfather is dying of cancer and an expensive procedure would give him another year to live, of course you will want to (or be more likely to) spend an unlimited amount of society's money to keep him alive. The question to ask is, would the resources be better spent on some other purpose that might benefit far more people? And it's not going to be up to you or your grandfather if we are being realistic about the scarcity of resources.
As for your other questions, there are many approaches to take toward a more free-market health insurance system but these have not been debated on the national stage. We seem preoccupied in even more programs and more mandates and more regulation. I have shown some evidence that the benefits of regulation do not outweigh the costs of regulation. Is it correct? Who the knows? You'll have to see if the author was stupid enough to participate in Who's Who of Economic Researchers.
If we induce competition into the market for health insurance and cut back on the regulations then perhaps getting the one or few plans offered through your employer becomes less important because insurance is affordable on the open market, and we increase our job mobility and all that other nonsense.
If you look at what Epstein is saying, his advice is redistribution last, deregulation first. Once we have a more free-market health insurance system, then we can look at who is falling through the cracks. But keep in mind that we are not providing a person with preexisting conditions insurance, we are providing them health care at this point, and the tough decisions are going to have to be made over who enjoy the benefits of our scarce resources if we don't wish to see the system go broke. These decisions can be made by the government, the private insurer or the village for all I care, but they will have to be made.
But, of course, some folks know the logical outcome of such policies. They know that because they believe the outcome will be poor, that my intentions are that it should be poor and I wish to see people die needlessly, that I have some nefarious purpose that I will somehow benefit from, as if I am even in control of these decisions or stand to profit in any way, as we're not just guys playing armchair policy analysis on a forum about cheap video games.
And then I will be called a moron or possibly classist
The problem with that is who's doing the valuing?
Edit:Tried making some analogies to value of life but didn't like the way they sounded. But I will say that it's one thing to say or think things like "well that person is a worthless sack of shit that contributes nothing to society" but its another thing to believe that the aforementioned "worthless sack of shit" doesn't deserve medical care just because of that.[/QUOTE]
I doubt such thinking would be in "sack of shit" units. But you ask the million dollar question. Who does the valuing? I think someone has to do it though (and they do) and I don't envy them. It should most likely be done in a calculated and formulaic process. Actuaries can make very good money.
We also reveal how much we value human life based on the actions we take. For example, we can study how much an increase in a speed limit in a state increases fatal accidents. Then we can calculate the monetary value of the time benefits of the speed limit increase and compare it to the increase in traffic fatalities. Using such a method (clearly more complicated than what I just described), the value of the statistical life that they came up with was $1.5 million in 1997 dollars, which is way below what economists usually come up with.
I guess you should tread lightly in Indiana...
[quote name='chiwii']
It's easy to say this when it isn't you or someone close to you in the situation.[/QUOTE]Which is why those people do not make those decisions. If your grandfather is dying of cancer and an expensive procedure would give him another year to live, of course you will want to (or be more likely to) spend an unlimited amount of society's money to keep him alive. The question to ask is, would the resources be better spent on some other purpose that might benefit far more people? And it's not going to be up to you or your grandfather if we are being realistic about the scarcity of resources.
As for your other questions, there are many approaches to take toward a more free-market health insurance system but these have not been debated on the national stage. We seem preoccupied in even more programs and more mandates and more regulation. I have shown some evidence that the benefits of regulation do not outweigh the costs of regulation. Is it correct? Who the
knows? You'll have to see if the author was stupid enough to participate in Who's Who of Economic Researchers. If we induce competition into the market for health insurance and cut back on the regulations then perhaps getting the one or few plans offered through your employer becomes less important because insurance is affordable on the open market, and we increase our job mobility and all that other nonsense.
If you look at what Epstein is saying, his advice is redistribution last, deregulation first. Once we have a more free-market health insurance system, then we can look at who is falling through the cracks. But keep in mind that we are not providing a person with preexisting conditions insurance, we are providing them health care at this point, and the tough decisions are going to have to be made over who enjoy the benefits of our scarce resources if we don't wish to see the system go broke. These decisions can be made by the government, the private insurer or the village for all I care, but they will have to be made.
But, of course, some folks know the logical outcome of such policies. They know that because they believe the outcome will be poor, that my intentions are that it should be poor and I wish to see people die needlessly, that I have some nefarious purpose that I will somehow benefit from, as if I am even in control of these decisions or stand to profit in any way, as we're not just guys playing armchair policy analysis on a forum about cheap video games.
And then I will be called a moron or possibly classist
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='chiwii']What sort of insurance are you looking for? Do you want to spend $10,000/year on medical care before your insurance starts paying? Then get a high deductible plan. The government isn't stopping you.
I agree that health insurance shouldn't be tied to a job. What do you think should be done about it? Should the federal government make it illegal for employers to provide health insurance as a benefit?
But, what about the big socialized programs, like Medicare and Medicaid? What about the people that the insurance companies refuse to cover because they won't be profitable? How are they handled in your free market system?[/QUOTE]
The gauntlet was already thrown and Spokker already decided he was not going to answer.
He will however continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth when people point this out.,
I agree that health insurance shouldn't be tied to a job. What do you think should be done about it? Should the federal government make it illegal for employers to provide health insurance as a benefit?
But, what about the big socialized programs, like Medicare and Medicaid? What about the people that the insurance companies refuse to cover because they won't be profitable? How are they handled in your free market system?[/QUOTE]
The gauntlet was already thrown and Spokker already decided he was not going to answer.
He will however continue to talk out of both sides of his mouth when people point this out.,
bread's done