The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

Msut77 said:
We read your posts sadly.

Is there a free market solution that provides health care to people who are sick and cannot work or afford it?

Would your free market plan let children die for lack of health care?
Click to expand...
And thus the reason no country has "the free market approach"...
 
Msut77 said:
We read your posts sadly.

Is there a free market solution that provides health care to people who are sick and cannot work or afford it?

Would your free market plan let children die for lack of health care?
Click to expand...
Yes, it has happened in the past because doctor's do not turn patients away.

Lack of health plan or health care? Plenty of charitable organizations have provided free healthcare and saved children.

Is healthcare a right?

RedvsBlue said:
And thus the reason no country has "the free market approach"...
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't even know how to counter that if you think this is the reason for lack of the free market approach. In that case because Russia and US tamper with elections I guess we should just roll with it.

 
Healthcare is a right to me.

Life liberty and all that.

So if these hypothetical charities don't help you are ok with children dying in reality and your hypothetical plan?
 
Msut77 said:
Healthcare is a right to me.

Life liberty and all that.

So if these hypothetical charities don't help you are ok with children dying in reality and your hypothetical plan?
Click to expand...
Well its not a right to me, so why are you ok with someone else being forced to pay for my well being?

You do realize I am talking about real organizations, right? Do I need to give you a few names?

Most doctors accept patients even if they do not have insurance. Here, 10 seconds of googling provided this:

http://ijr.com/2014/01/106038-obamacare-day-3-hospitals-delay-surgeries-doctors-turn-away-patients/

I am starting to think that you believe everyone must be forced into doing their "duty" for anything to get done.

Did you read that article about the girl that died waiting for a hospital bed in Canada? Are you ok with that? I am not, hence why I want less of bureaucrats and more doctors.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrsilkunderwear said:
Well its not a right to me, so why are you ok with someone else being forced to pay for my well being?

You do realize I am talking about real organizations, right? Do I need to give you a few names?

Most doctors accept patients even if they do not have insurance. Here, 10 seconds of googling provided this:

http://ijr.com/2014/01/106038-obamacare-day-3-hospitals-delay-surgeries-doctors-turn-away-patients/

I am starting to think that you believe everyone must be forced into doing their "duty" for anything to get done.

Did you read that article about the girl that died waiting for a hospital bed in Canada? Are you ok with that? I am not, hence why I want less of bureaucrats and more doctors.
Click to expand...
If you don't get why you're paying for someone else's well being regardless of a single payer system then you don't get how insurance works let alone how civilized world in general functions.
 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Well its not a right to me, so why are you ok with someone else being forced to pay for my well being?
Click to expand...
I never valued your opinion before, why would I start now?

Also, as much as I think you have nothing to contribute, I still wouldn't support a system that let's you die due to lack of healthcare. Before Obamacare more than 40k per year died that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedvsBlue said:
If you don't get why you're paying for someone else's well being regardless of a single payer system then you don't get how insurance works let alone how civilized world in general functions.
Click to expand...
Relax grumpy pants, we were discussing if healthcare is a right. Insurance does not play a part in this. So let me ask again, are you ok with someone else being forced to pay for my well being?

Msut77 said:
I never valued your opinion before, why would I start now?

Also, as much as I think you have nothing to contribute, I still wouldn't support a system that let's you die due to lack of healthcare. Before Obamacare more than 40k per year died that way.
Click to expand...
I don't know, you always initiate a discussion and ask me questions. I usually avoid talking to you since you ignored most of my questions in the past. If you want to continue conversing why don't you answer if you are ok with a system that lets a person die because she was waiting for a hospital bed. While you are contemplating if you should answer that, also let me know if you are ok with healthy families seeing the premiums skyrocket under ACA. Thanks pumpkin.

 
"Being forced to pay for your wellbeing" Really? The roads you drive on, the education the children get, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the electricity you use are paid for by society through taxes or some other funding scheme one way or another.

Somebody has to make sure people don't drink gasoline, somebody has to make sure most people don't die from smog, somebody has to pay those roads, somebody has to make sure people don't die because they couldn't get medicine. That is society in a nutshell. If you really despite the living daylights out of it, why are you here? Why don't you just live off the grid like a Captain Fantastic?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
detectiveconan16 said:
"Being forced to pay for your wellbeing" Really? The roads you drive on, the education the children get, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the electricity you use are paid for by society through taxes or some other funding scheme one way or another.

Somebody has to make sure people don't drink gasoline, somebody has to make sure most people don't die from smog, somebody has to pay those roads, somebody has to make sure people don't die because they couldn't get medicine. That is society in a nutshell. If you really despite the living daylights out of it, why are you here? Why don't you just live off the grid like a Captain Fantastic?
Click to expand...
Well, yes. We are talking about health care in particular and last I checked I have paid a penalty for last 2-3 years.

Everything else is a different topic but lets talk about. Roads can be maintained by a local government via consumption taxes and tolls. Education can be privatized or sponsored by local communities and governments. Water and electricity as utilities paid by taxes?I am pretty sure I get billed for that. Let me know if my taxes are supposed to cover that so I can call for a refund. Air, what about it man, you gotta be specific.

What you just described is not a definition of a society. A society could be a community helping each other through voluntary means. Paying taxes is fine if they are voluntary and minimal. Last I checked humanity did just fine before income tax was introduced.

Hmm I never said I despised this country, pretty sure I actually said I love this country and its people in the past. But hey I could tell you feel free to move to Canada now that Trump is president so you can get some of that healthcare but that would wrong. Everyone should have a chance to better their home, just don't force someone into these little schemes.

Drinking gasoline? I am sorry but are you this guy:

9ffa8dbf-ced2-47e1-9c7a-88dc110e2daf.png


Edit: But mah roads!?!?

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/man-single-handedly-carved-road-mountain/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
detectiveconan16 said:
"Being forced to pay for your wellbeing" Really? The roads you drive on, the education the children get, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the electricity you use are paid for by society through taxes or some other funding scheme one way or another.

Somebody has to make sure people don't drink gasoline, somebody has to make sure most people don't die from smog, somebody has to pay those roads, somebody has to make sure people don't die because they couldn't get medicine. That is society in a nutshell. If you really despite the living daylights out of it, why are you here? Why don't you just live off the grid like a Captain Fantastic?
Click to expand...
i bet that he is still under his parents insurance
 
I know that, but I am genuinely curious what someone whos health care plan is let people die plans on if he can't work or has an an accident. Bankruptcy probably
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
I know that, but I am genuinely curious what someone whos health care plan is let people die plans on if he can't work or has an an accident. Bankruptcy probably
Click to expand...
Big enterprise company, contract. Good job making more assumptions without reading what I had to say. Unfortunate that you still have not commented on Laura Hillier's death. I guess I should not expect much from someone who has a reading comprehension problem.

Interesting article from this morning. The funny thing is the so called "extremists" Cruz, Lee and Paul all voted in favor but you know lets roll with the liberal circle jerk that republicans want to kill you.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/?comments=1#comments

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Temp work is temp work no matter how big the company is. You really think it's ok to just roll the dice for yourself and that's fine, but it matters for the rest of us.
 
Yeah, I've seen Trump supporters say that Giuliani is a great pick because he'll be tough on crime. When pressed how compared to the full force of the law enforcement agencies, they'll stick to "tough on crime." That's less of a concrete plan and more of a scorched earth policy.

I guess they're also cheering on Mnuchin, as his hearing is next week. Keep in mind that the guy controlled a bank that foreclosed on a lot of people, some of them REAL Americans.

 
Yea tough on crime is one thing if your going to be head of some law enforcement group, but being the head of a computer crimes division is something else all together.  He didnt even understand that by going for some bargain basement contractors to build his own CYBER SECURITY WEBSITE, that it was going to be full of holes, let alone not making sure it was at least up to date.  I wouldnt expect him to understand all the stuff going on inside, but he showed a horrible lack of management and basic understanding that would be necessary to head a computer crimes organization

Then again that is the same with almost all of trumps cabinet picks. None of them are qualified in anyway save for maybe a general (and as much as I wouldnt want a bank owner who foreclosed on people at least he knows the business and people). All he's done is pick people who are his friends and have name recognition, not a single one on actual merit to do the damn job they are hired for

This would be like me picking the greatest real estate agent in town to help write and architect software. Well he knows houses and how good houses are constructed and how to sell them to people, so he should know how to properly construct software, sure, makes sense

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Healthcare is a right to me.

Life liberty and all that.

So if these hypothetical charities don't help you are ok with children dying in reality and your hypothetical plan?
Click to expand...
Why is healthcare a right? What other commodity is a right and what other right is a commodity? You need food and housing to live right? Are those rights as well? Why not have the government pay for food and housing too? If you think this will work, please research what happens when countries do this.

I say that healthcare is not a right because it is a commodity and commodities are not rights, they are goods/services that are bought and sold. The right to life means that you can't take someone else's life - it belongs to them. It doesn't mean that you have the right to live at other people's expense. Where do you draw the line if healthcare is a right - life extending care that will help cancer patients live for a few more months can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, is this still a right? It won't work unless you ration the care and then, where do you draw the line with when healthcare is not a right?

Our current health "insurance" is not really insurance, it is pre-paid healthcare. This leads to increased consumption because the person consuming the commodity is not paying for it directly and this causes prices to increase. This system has helped to increased the cost of healthcare that we have currently.

True insurance is purchased to shift risk like car insurance and you only use it when the expense is big enough. This means that office visits would likely not be covered and this would result in fewer office visits until the price hit a point that people could afford. This would happen across the board until the price of the supply met the demand.

Medical care is a service provided by a third party. When you say it is a right, you indicate that some people are mandated to fund other people's care. Giving to charity is a choice, you are not compelled to do it. If you force someone to do something they don't want to do, you are decreasing their freedom.

I don't think that you understand the healthcare system. I work for a hospital and understand much of it. The hospital I work at currently (under the ACA) provides free care to poor people, not just life saving care, but also for conditions that are not life threatening. They also did this prior to the ACA. You are fooling yourself if you don't think charitable organizations help people every day - many hospitals among them. In addition, prior to the ACA, the ER at the hospital had to treat people for life threatening conditions even if they could not pay.

detectiveconan16 said:
"Being forced to pay for your wellbeing" Really? The roads you drive on, the education the children get, the water you drink, the air you breathe, the electricity you use are paid for by society through taxes or some other funding scheme one way or another.

Somebody has to make sure people don't drink gasoline, somebody has to make sure most people don't die from smog, somebody has to pay those roads, somebody has to make sure people don't die because they couldn't get medicine. That is society in a nutshell. If you really despite the living daylights out of it, why are you here? Why don't you just live off the grid like a Captain Fantastic?
Click to expand...
The air I breathe is not paid for by taxes and I buy my electricity from the power company. Nobody makes sure that adults don't drink gasoline, but parents do this with kids occasionally I guess. People will typically die quicker without food than medicine and it is an adults responsibility to pay for their own food. The same is true for medicine. Eschewing personal responsibility is a big part of the problem we have in our society. Rely on yourself, not the government. Bad personal choices can also affect how much healthcare someone will need. Why should I have to pay for someone's care who has lung cancer from smoking for years? That was his/her choice and he/she should have to pay for it.

You are correct that education and roads are part of society that is paid for by taxes. Should people in living in Ohio pay to fund the schools and roads of the people in Hawaii?

I look forward to your thoughtful answers to my questions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are plenty of industrialized countties with universal health care systems that take care of every one. They spend less per capita than Americans did pre Obamacare. They had on the whole better health outcomes and virtually non existent medical bankruptcies.

Does that answer the question zac?
 
Msut77 said:
There are plenty of industrialized countties with universal health care systems that take care of every one. They spend less per capita than Americans did pre Obamacare. They had on the whole better health outcomes and virtually non existent medical bankruptcies.

Does that answer the question zac?
Click to expand...
No, it does not answer any of the questions in my post.

 
MattZack said:
No, it does not answer any of the questions in my post.
Click to expand...
"If you think this will work, please research what happens when countries do this. "

There are plenty of industrialized countties with universal health care systems that take care of every one. They spend less per capita than Americans did pre Obamacare. They had on the whole better health outcomes and virtually non existent medical bankruptcies.

 
Msut77 said:
"If you think this will work, please research what happens when countries do this. "

There are plenty of industrialized countties with universal health care systems that take care of every one. They spend less per capita than Americans did pre Obamacare. They had on the whole better health outcomes and virtually non existent medical bankruptcies.
Click to expand...

MattZack said:
Why is healthcare a right? What other commodity is a right and what other right is a commodity? You need food and housing to live right? Are those rights as well? Why not have the government pay for food and housing too? If you think this will work, please research what happens when countries do this.
Click to expand...
"This" refers to what happens to countries that pay for housing, food, and healthcare. Also, please answer the other questions posed in the above quote. The thing I would really like you to answer is why healthcare is a right.

I don't think that you are wrong when you say that other countries offer differing solutions to healthcare, but I do believe that you are incorrect when you state that they take care of everyone. Look at the wait time for care in Canada. I work with a lady who moved to and then back from Canada. She was a provider and the wait times were months and years there for procedures that take days or weeks here.

I would hardly call this taking care of everyone:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/effect-of-wait-times-on-mortality-in-canada

We find that, over this 16-year period, increases in wait times for The Effect of Wait Times on Mortality in Canada / v fraserinstitute.org medically necessary elective treatment may be associated with 44,273 additional female deaths (with a 95% confidence interval from 25,456 to 63,090). This represents approximately 2.5% of total female deaths during the period or 1.2% of total mortality (male and female) during the period.

Further, over a 15-year period from 1994 to 2009 changes in wait times for cardiovascular care are associated with approximately 662 potentially avoidable deaths (with a 95% confidence interval from 35 to 1,289). This represents approximately 0.16% of avoidable female deaths during the period or 0.06% of total avoidable mortality (male and female) during the period. This may largely be a reflection of the fact that, in a number of provinces, wait times for cardiovascular surgery have improved during the 15-year period, resulting in potential reductions in avoidable mortality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
Are you going to pretend we were only talking about Canada?

As if what I mentioned didn't include a few dozen other countries?
Click to expand...
I did not imply that we were only talking about Canada. I just used a country with universal healthcare that I know something about. I was refuting your statement saying that plenty of countries with universal healthcare take care of everyone. You are incorrect in your hyperbole. Everyone means everyone, I am simply showing you that you are not correct about it helping "every one". That is why I wrote:

MattZack said:
I would hardly call this taking care of everyone:
Click to expand...
Now, would you please tell me why healthcare is a right?

 
You didn't refute anything. If I said Hitler didn't like Jews and you pointed out the maybe 3 exceptions that doesn't refute the statement. I already posted why healthcare is a right. Its up to you now to explain why Americans should pay more for the right to have more people die and worse outcomes.
 
I did refute your statement that universal healthcare takes care of "every one". If you don't think so, then you don't understand the common definition of everyone (literally every person) and I don't need to argue with you about it.

Msut77 said:
I already posted why healthcare is a right. Its up to you now to explain why Americans should pay more for the right to have more people die and worse outcomes.
Click to expand...
Is this the post you are referring to?

Msut77 said:
Healthcare is a right to me.

Life liberty and all that.

So if these hypothetical charities don't help you are ok with children dying in reality and your hypothetical plan?
Click to expand...
This doesn't really answer the questions I have.

Thank you for discussing this with me since I actually wanted your thoughts about why you believe healthcare to be a right. Please know that we both would like to have the same thing, healthcare that is affordable and takes care of as many people as possible. Where we differ is how we think we should go about it as a nation.

Good day.

 
MattZack said:
I did refute your statement that universal healthcare takes care of "every one".
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. Using your "logic" the Nazis had a Jewish Field Marshall - Erhard Milch whom they made an exception for, therefore Hitler = friend of the Jews.

If you want to admit you are wrong we can continue the conversation.

Also:

Please know that we both would like to have the same thing, healthcare that is affordable and takes care of as many people as possible. Where we differ is how we think we should go about it as a nation.
Click to expand...
When you say things like healthcare is a commodity, or use weasel language like "as possible" then no one should believe you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, then using your definition of the words "every one" our healthcare system helped "every one" before the ACA.

How about this, with your understanding of the information I presented on the Canadian Healthcare system, do you think that the Canadian system "takes care of every one"? As you noted earlier, I realize that there are other countries with universal healthcare, but I am narrowing this question to only Canada so that I can ask you a very precise question to attempt to understand your meaning of "every one". If you state that you do think the Canadian Healthcare system "takes care of every one", great, we just disagree about the definition of "every one" or "takes care". If you actually think that it doesn't "take care of every one", then I will need more information in order to understand.

Msut77 said:
Deaths in the US due to lack of healthcare before the ACA

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/
Click to expand...
Did you read this study? Here is the link:

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/2009_harvard_health_study.pdf

Read the methods section of this and tell me if you still believe that this study should represented as "Deaths in the US due to lack of healthcare before the ACA"?

This shows an association, nothing more. In fact, the authors of the study actually state:

"Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality." However, you use the word "due", which I and the authors of the study believe is incorrect after reading this study. Heck, even the URL you provided says "linked to", not "due to".

 
So how many deaths do you think occured due to lack of healthcare from any study you can find?

How many people dead is acceptable to you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
When you say things like healthcare is a commodity, or use weasel language like "as possible" then no one should believe you.
Click to expand...
A commodity is a good or a service in an economy. The phrase "as possible" is the antithesis of your use of the words "every one" - meaning accurate and reasonable, not hyperbolic, realizing that there are bounds to what is possible. I did not call you a weasel when you decided to misrepresent the study about deaths due to the lack of healthcare and I will thank you not to do so to me. I did notice that you seemed to have edited your post from the first draft which implied that I did not really care about if people died due to lack of healthcare and I do appreciate this kindness.

Msut77 said:
So how many deaths do you think occured due to lack of healthcare from any study you can find?

How many people dead is acceptable to you?
Click to expand...
I did not look for a study, I only looked at the one the article you linked to was about. I would prefer zero dead people due to lack of healthcare, but I do not believe that there is a healthcare system that can provide this. Maybe we can agree on that point?

 
Ok, if you studied any amount of healthcare economics you would know it isnt a commodity.

A) It isnt a single good or service but an almost infinite variety of goods and services

B) You almost literally never know what the price is at the end, even for minor things.

Talking about a market impacting those too young or feeble to make educated decisions and choice - considering where even a healthy young person can get cancer or an automobile accident is a joke.

Have you ever read "UNCERTAINTY AND THE WELFARE ECONOMICS OF MEDICAL CARE" by Kenneth Arrow?

You keep trying to trap me in these pedantic little words games and it isnt going to work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a big problem with the healthcare argument is that liberals and conservatives are trying to attack it from completely opposite ends and it doesn't really seem like either has a solid plan for how to get to the middle.

With Bernie Sanders and people pushing for single payer, you have a belief that costs are way too high, and the only way to fix that is to circumvent it entirely, and create your own system where everybody is covered equally. And one of the things we've seen as a side effect of this is just how much healthcare people use and how much of a burden that is on the system...which isn't sustainable with current healthcare prices.

On the other side, you have conservatives (at least ones who aren't in bed with pharma and are genuinely concerned with the problem) who recognize that costs are too high...but still believe each person should be responsible for their own healthcare needs. And you get these suggestions of vouchers, tax credits, etc...in an effort to subsidize the cost to some degree...but definitely not enough with current healthcare prices.

The underlying issue is what doctors, private insurers, and people in the pharmaceutical industry are able to charge. I don't disagree with Zack's basic economic concept that if people stopped going in for office visits, the price of those visits would come down. But it's going to take a LONG time to turn that ship around.

And if I'm being completely honest, making something as critically important as healthcare compete for business like a fast food restaurant or an automotive garage makes me uncomfortable as hell, man. It's bad enough that I have to watch my mechanic like a hawk to make sure he's not cutting corners to inflate his profits as much as possible. I don't want to see doctors doing that crap. I mean, sure, you could read their Yelp! reviews...but at some point, I feel like we have to draw a line of "this is too important to screw around with".

To be fair, I guess there already is a little of that when you look at ads for LASIK surgery...but be honest, doesn't that make you uncomfortable and suspicious when you see ads that say stuff like "Buy 1 Eye...Get 1 Free!!!"? Call me crazy, but I really want my healthcare to be above that. And to do that, I believe it does need to be regulated and controlled. But I'm also somebody who believes the EPA is important...and the FDA is important...and so on.

 
Msut77 said:
Sorry ACA wasn't a solid plan?
Click to expand...
What it was shoehorned into through various compromises and changes wasn't. It's not disputable that it was costing more than anticipated. Was it a good starting point? Absolutely. My opinion has always been that Obama knew that something was better than nothing, and knew that just getting anything through was a victory. But is it sustainable long-term in its current form? Probably not. It's also not single payer and it's not universal healthcare.

Ultimately, allowing the pharmaceutical industry to rip off the government isn't much better than allowing them to rip off consumers. Something has to force prices to come down. The idea of "free market competition" is good in theory. But we're supposed to have that with other industries *ahem-cable companies-ahem* and look what happens. If the companies just collude and decide what a "good price" for services is, then corporate wins and consumers lose.

I don't know that government intervention and having a cap on what can be charged is the answer...but I don't believe in big business actually choosing to do anything that is good for the people. So, in that regard, I do tend to align my thinking with that of Bernie Sanders. It's heavy handed and pie in the sky thinking...but I'm just not ok with a so called "commodity" (which in reality is a "necessity") being held ransom with zero alternatives.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy s-. I thought the Ben Carson hearing was stupid, our next education secretary (who the GOP will vote for along party lines!) is just utterly incompetent. Guns in schools to fight bears. Can't tell the difference between proficiency and growth. Never actually taught children.

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