|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 23 2016 05:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused. When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people. I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant. However it is what you said. Bush created a nightmare. That's not what I said, although I appreciate that you relish the chance to jump at calling someone stupid. The war in Iraq was very obviously the one I'm talking about being up for argument. The main point is that when a country gets attacked, it's no longer their choice whether they're at war. And that was the context - unlike Plansix I don't see it fruitful to blame Bush for go[ing] to war when the enemy drew first blood. So it doesn't make much sense to mock Bush's leadership on that count like he's a simple-minded war hawk - anyone would have called the military in that situation (including, for example, Congress).
I didn’t blame him for the attack Afghanistan or trying to destroy the government that allowed the terrorists to exist within their borders. I blamed him for how he handled it. For pushing a country with zero democratic tradition to run elections like it was going to solve problems or they would elect people qualified to run the country. For going to war with another country like Afghanistan was already won. For not catching the people who planning the attack and allowing them to be at large for so many years.
Bush doesn’t get points for picking one right country to attack and still fucking it up.
|
On February 23 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:17 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused. When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people. I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant. However it is what you said. Bush created a nightmare. That's not what I said, although I appreciate that you relish the chance to jump at calling someone stupid. The war in Iraq was very obviously the one I'm talking about being up for argument. The main point is that when a country gets attacked, it's no longer their choice whether they're at war. And that was the context - unlike Plansix I don't see it fruitful to blame Bush for go[ing] to war when the enemy drew first blood. So it doesn't make much sense to mock Bush's leadership on that count like he's a simple-minded war hawk - anyone would have called the military in that situation (including, for example, Congress). I didn’t blame him for the attack Afghanistan or trying to destroy the government that allowed the terrorists to exist within their borders. I blamed him for how he handled it. For pushing a country with zero democratic tradition to run elections like it was going to solve problems or they would elect people qualified to run the country. For going to war with another country like Afghanistan was already won. For not catching the people who planning the attack and allowing them to be at large for so many years. Bush doesn’t get points for picking one right country to attack and still fucking it up.
You could blame him for jumping the gun during the invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban leadership and OBL escaped. Had Bush2 waited and let the Army/Airforce go in heavy instead of relying on CIA-SOF and Afghan Northern/Eastern Alliance troops perhaps we could have cut off their escape. The CIA guys get lauded as heroes for how fast they chased the Taliban into Pakistan, but the total failure to secure their escape routes pretty much doomed the war from the start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_in_Afghanistan
|
On February 23 2016 05:14 Atreides wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:06 Atreides wrote:
See while thats great and all I have a philosophical problem with paying a 1000$ uninsured penalty, ie. a good portion of MY house payment so that someone else can make their rent AND have health insurance (which I don't have). I know, I'm an extreme right wing conservative with a hole in my soul.
Its not like there wasn't already welfare programs in place that provided financial assistance to people who needed healthcare and couldn't afford it. (Not that I feel like getting in to it, but my basic position is that health insurance in general pretty much fucks up the whole healthcare system.)
Its not like I make tons of money, I just happen to be 29, single, and self employed. A demographic which gets kind of screwed by taxes/obamacare and is also not really present on this forum. Did you apply for an Obamacare exemption? I made ~60k the last two years, which is not that much living in Alaska and self-employed but enough that obamacare thinks I could afford health insurance.
I am sympathetic, but that doesn't strike me as a philosophical problem as much as a functional problem. People who need health insurance but can't afford it are exactly the sort of people who Obamacare is supposed to help, and if it isn't helping you then it should be improved so that it does.
Also, the strength of welfare depends a lot on your state. My sister lived in Massachusetts after college and was self-employed as a photographer. She struggled to make ends meet for a long time, but the welfare and healthcare systems there were immensely helpful. Then she moved to Tennessee because her husband was assigned there and it was like having the rug swept out from under her.
That's one of the reasons I was very sad to see Romney trying to distance himself from what he'd accomplished in Massachusetts. I'd shake the man's hand if I ever met him for what he indirectly did for my sister.
|
On February 23 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:06 Atreides wrote:
See while thats great and all I have a philosophical problem with paying a 1000$ uninsured penalty, ie. a good portion of MY house payment so that someone else can make their rent AND have health insurance (which I don't have). I know, I'm an extreme right wing conservative with a hole in my soul.
Its not like there wasn't already welfare programs in place that provided financial assistance to people who needed healthcare and couldn't afford it. (Not that I feel like getting in to it, but my basic position is that health insurance in general pretty much fucks up the whole healthcare system.)
Its not like I make tons of money, I just happen to be 29, single, and self employed. A demographic which gets kind of screwed by taxes/obamacare and is also not really present on this forum. Did you apply for an Obamacare exemption? Also you get to deduct 25% of health insurance premium costs if self employed and are eligible for an Obamacare Premium Subsidy (tax credit). To me it seems like Obama is trying to give you cheap insurance if you're self employed and you're going "fuck you, I'd rather pay $1000 and still have no insurance". Did you check with a CPA about what Obamacare meant for your business?
To each their own, of course, but I just entered some very basic data for a 29y.o. single person earning 60k a year, and the options are either quite considerably more than $1000 or rather shitty (and still more than $1000 annually). With a better search and also applying for the specific deductions, Atreides might be able to bring down the price of the shitty insurance to around $1000, but reading the policy I am actually quite surprised that kind of policy is still allowed under the ACA.
It doesn't cover the cheap stuff, or the really expensive stuff, and in addition has some notable exceptions of coverage right in the area where you'd expect a healthy 29y.o. might need coverage (emergency room and hospitalization for instance).
Accept that some people will get shafted. Atreides is unfortunately one of those guys. Luckily there's a flipside, which is Seuss and Plansix's buddies' lives being saved. But no law is ever going to improve life for everyone.
|
On February 23 2016 05:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:17 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused. When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people. I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant. However it is what you said. Bush created a nightmare. That's not what I said, although I appreciate that you relish the chance to jump at calling someone stupid. The war in Iraq was very obviously the one I'm talking about being up for argument. The main point is that when a country gets attacked, it's no longer their choice whether they're at war. And that was the context - unlike Plansix I don't see it fruitful to blame Bush for go[ing] to war when the enemy drew first blood. So it doesn't make much sense to mock Bush's leadership on that count like he's a simple-minded war hawk - anyone would have called the military in that situation (including, for example, Congress). Would they though? The US was not attacked by another state, it was attacked by a stateless group with a stateless ideology. That doesn't automatically mean you're at war, even if you seem to think it does. I appreciate you jumping to the conclusion that what you said was stupid because it was and it saves me time. However even if we accept that the act of being attacked by a stateless group automatically means you're at war (although with whom is unclear because again, stateless group), that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for who you designate this war with. In some kind of weird alternate reality where every hostile act (like the US bugging German politicians for example) automatically means that Germany must declare war on someone that still doesn't mean Germany should declare war on the wrong people. Couldn't they just go "you know what, let's declare peace" or better yet question this convention that whenever anyone does anything to you war must be immediately declared on someone. You can have a military solution, such as bombing training camps, without deciding to throw darts at a map of the Middle East and declare war based on the result. I'm amazed you cannot see this. Just because 9/11 merited a military reaction does not mean that war had to be declared on someone and certainly doesn't mean war had to be declared on people who had nothing to do with it. It was a choice and it was a fuckup.
"Stateless" does not mean "ethereal." Al-Qaeda had physical roots in Afghanistan thanks to Taliban control of the country. I appreciate the need to show you're an enlightened person who doesn't advocate frivolous violence, but 3,000 civilians dying in one day is about as far as you can get from a wiretapping scandal between allies. If there were ever a better opportunity to abandon symbolic pacifism and accept that there are battles in the world that are worth fighting... There were also independent reasons for intervention in the places the US-led coalitions did go, which I think you understand at some level - if perhaps only in the sense that if the dart had landed on Egypt it would have qualified for a re-throw.
On February 23 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:17 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused. When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people. I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant. However it is what you said. Bush created a nightmare. That's not what I said, although I appreciate that you relish the chance to jump at calling someone stupid. The war in Iraq was very obviously the one I'm talking about being up for argument. The main point is that when a country gets attacked, it's no longer their choice whether they're at war. And that was the context - unlike Plansix I don't see it fruitful to blame Bush for go[ing] to war when the enemy drew first blood. So it doesn't make much sense to mock Bush's leadership on that count like he's a simple-minded war hawk - anyone would have called the military in that situation (including, for example, Congress). I didn’t blame him for the attack Afghanistan or trying to destroy the government that allowed the terrorists to exist within their borders. I blamed him for how he handled it. For pushing a country with zero democratic tradition to run elections like it was going to solve problems or they would elect people qualified to run the country. For going to war with another country like Afghanistan was already won. For not catching the people who planning the attack and allowing them to be at large for so many years. Bush doesn’t get points for picking one right country to attack and still fucking it up.
Propping up authoritarian governments in the region has not historically been great for anyone, as I often hear from dogmatic anti-interventionists. I don't personally believe there's anything different about people around the world that makes some of them ready for self-determination and democracy and some of them not. It's also not up to Bush himself how much voter fraud did or didn't happen in Kandahar on a given day. In a different context, if you blame Republicans for fucking up things Obama wanted to accomplish, why can't we at some level blame actual bureaucrats, soldiers, diplomats, officials, whatever, for making specific mistakes in occupied countries, instead of just heaping all the bad things on Bush?
|
United States42009 Posts
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher.
|
Right, I only even brought this up because the point is that you have to expect the people who do get shafted by any political action/position to oppose it.
Incidentally, the only realistic option as far as I can tell is some sort of religious medi-share program with a very high deductible and the other weaknesses of that sort of a plan. Several people I know went that route. Obviously if the penalty got high enough I would do it. However I am hoping for some "change" coming up here!
Edit: See I happen to think that NOONE should be using health insurance if they just get "sick" I would be ok with the whole system if the deductables were high enough (at least 5k+) that people just payed out of pocket for 90% of things. It's not my fault that most people are so god fucking awful with their money that they can't cover petty expenses. And yes getting sick, or antibiotics, or getting your teeth cleaned, or paying for your prescriptions, are petty expenses. I didn't used to make this much money and I've lived on my own (without insurance) since I was 17 and have not yet had anything come up I didn't pay for myself.
Edit2: Also I'm pretty sure KwarK post is so retarded it doesn't need a response but I'll give it a one-liner.
The reason there is a penalty is because they need people like me to fund the system and pay for the moochers, they don't penalize the moochers you can't by definition.
|
On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher.
Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:25 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:17 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused. When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people. I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant. However it is what you said. Bush created a nightmare. That's not what I said, although I appreciate that you relish the chance to jump at calling someone stupid. The war in Iraq was very obviously the one I'm talking about being up for argument. The main point is that when a country gets attacked, it's no longer their choice whether they're at war. And that was the context - unlike Plansix I don't see it fruitful to blame Bush for go[ing] to war when the enemy drew first blood. So it doesn't make much sense to mock Bush's leadership on that count like he's a simple-minded war hawk - anyone would have called the military in that situation (including, for example, Congress). Would they though? The US was not attacked by another state, it was attacked by a stateless group with a stateless ideology. That doesn't automatically mean you're at war, even if you seem to think it does. I appreciate you jumping to the conclusion that what you said was stupid because it was and it saves me time. However even if we accept that the act of being attacked by a stateless group automatically means you're at war (although with whom is unclear because again, stateless group), that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for who you designate this war with. In some kind of weird alternate reality where every hostile act (like the US bugging German politicians for example) automatically means that Germany must declare war on someone that still doesn't mean Germany should declare war on the wrong people. Couldn't they just go "you know what, let's declare peace" or better yet question this convention that whenever anyone does anything to you war must be immediately declared on someone. You can have a military solution, such as bombing training camps, without deciding to throw darts at a map of the Middle East and declare war based on the result. I'm amazed you cannot see this. Just because 9/11 merited a military reaction does not mean that war had to be declared on someone and certainly doesn't mean war had to be declared on people who had nothing to do with it. It was a choice and it was a fuckup. "Stateless" does not mean "ethereal." Al-Qaeda had physical roots in Afghanistan thanks to Taliban control of the country. I appreciate the need to show you're an enlightened person who doesn't advocate frivolous violence, but 3,000 civilians dying in one day is about as far as you can get from a wiretapping scandal between allies. If there were ever a better opportunity to abandon symbolic pacifism and accept that there are battles in the world that are worth fighting... There were also independent reasons for intervention in the places the US-led coalitions did go, which I think you understand at some level - if perhaps only in the sense that if the dart had landed on Egypt it would have qualified for a re-throw.
It was predominantly a Saudi group, in manpower, in funding and in ideological roots. This report
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html
puts the total cost of the military adventurism at around 4-6t. That works out at about 1.3b-2b per death in 9/11.
You can't really argue "if there were ever a day to spend $6,000,000,000,000 then 9/11 was certainly it". 9/11 was a bad day but it was nowhere near as devastating to America, let alone the rest of the world, as Bush's response to 9/11. And before you argue that it doesn't really work like that and you can't look at it in such clinical terms, that's exactly what his job is. Any idiot from Texas can say "someone attacked us, declare war" and then leave the details on who to declare war on to Cheney. It's the job of the leader to do things which are good ideas and will actually make things better. If 9/11 happened once a year, every year, it would have still been better to do nothing than to do what Bush did. The magnitude of the fuckup really cannot be understated.
Incidentally Egypt was a stable dictatorship which had a secure peace with Israel and had Islamic extremist under control, much like Iraq.
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides
Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance.
Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't and he's been uninsured since he was 17 and hasn't yet had one of the crippling health emergencies that instantly bankrupt an individual and leave the hospital footing the bill.
Someone should buy him a basic explanation of how insurance works and what it does. He thinks he's discredited the entire idea of insuring against low probability high devastation events with his evidence of "well it didn't happen to me".
|
He doesn't need any damn health insurance. He's not sick and he, like the average American, won't be needing it for several decades. It's cheaper for him to pay the penalty than it is to pay for an insurance that he doesn't need.
|
On February 23 2016 06:03 Deathstar wrote:
He doesn't need any damn health insurance. He's not sick and he, like the average American, won't be needing it for several decades. It's cheaper for him to pay the penalty than it is to pay for an insurance that he doesn't need.
Speaking from personal experience, this is a terrible plan and no one should adopt this.
|
You heard it here first, Atreides, you have been magically inoculated against any and all maladies for the next few decades by Deathstar's proclamation. Use these next invulnerable years well!
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:03 Deathstar wrote:
He doesn't need any damn health insurance. He's not sick and he, like the average American, won't be needing it for several decades. It's cheaper for him to pay the penalty than it is to pay for an insurance that he doesn't need.
You apparently don't understand the concept of insurance.
You don't buy insurance once you're sick in order to get covered. You buy insurance whether you're sick or not because you accept that a low probability huge cost event may happen and won't warn you in advance. If something happens to him tomorrow that costs upwards of $200k, and this is America so any of a hundred issues will cost that, he isn't paying it. But he still wants the treatment, he just doesn't want to pay it. He won't be there in the bed going "no, don't operate, capitalism demands my life as penance for my refusal to buy insurance", he'll leave the hospital, declare bankruptcy and get on with his life while leaving a trail of unpaid bills behind him.
The fact that a low probability high cost event has not yet happened doesn't discredit the idea of insurance. He's like an individual who refuses to get home insurance against a fire because he looked out the window and it was raining while simultaneously expecting to have all his stuff replaced at taxpayer's expense if there is a fire. His argument that he'd replace any one of his items if needed doesn't change the fact that he simply cannot afford to pay the maximum potential cost should all of them need replacing at once. That maximum cost will be paid by everyone else while he pleads poverty.
He needs insurance. And he can afford insurance. But rather than get insurance to protect against the low probability devastating cost event he's choosing to pay a penalty instead, which still leaves him uninsured but also out the penalty.
|
On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't.
You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy.
However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine.
From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself.
|
On February 23 2016 06:09 farvacola wrote:
You heard it here first, Atreides, you have been magically inoculated against any and all maladies for the next few decades by Deathstar's proclamation. Use these next invulnerable years well!
The internet is the gift that keeps on giving.
|
On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself.
It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance.
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance.
Deathstar said it wouldn't happen. He's good.
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself.
Until the event you insure against happens. Then Deathstar declares bankruptcy because he cannot afford to pay those hospital bills and the rest of society is left fucked.
Atreides is relying upon the fact that he can cheat the system when the time comes by using healthcare for costs he didn't insure against, and then still not pay those costs. He will, of course, claim that he is perfectly healthy and therefore is invulnerable but we know that it doesn't work that way.
$1000 is his "stop trying to cheat the system" penalty.
|
On February 23 2016 06:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:09 Acrofales wrote:On February 23 2016 05:58 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 05:48 Deathstar wrote:On February 23 2016 05:46 KwarK wrote:
60k is almost twice the national median income too, and if I recall correctly Alaska has no state income tax. Your healthcare is a social obligation, if you get sick you will not be left to die in the street. I don't think it's too unreasonable for people to be penalized for neglecting their healthcare needs (by not getting insurance) to have a penalty. They are passing the buck for their statistical risk onto society as a whole, they're not going to refuse treatment if they get sick and choose to die arguing "I made my bed when I didn't get insurance, I deserve this".
You make 60k, get health insurance. Failing to do so makes you a moocher and failing to do so and then paying a penalty (while still having no insurance) makes you not a very smart moocher. Oh please we know who the big moochers are, and it's not people like Atreides Which is my point. He's not getting the insurance and he's still paying the penalty. It's the stupid from both sides. He's trying to mooch and failing. He needs to just get the damn health insurance. Amusingly enough he goes on to argue that the reason for this is because he manages his money so well and other people don't. You see, you're looking at this from a philosophical point of view, where you claim that Atreides has a duty to pay for the healthcare of his fellow Americans. For the record, I agree with this philosophy. However, Atreides is looking at it from an economic standpoint, where his personal gain from health insurance is actually lower than staying uninsured and paying the fine. From an economic perspective, it's not Pareto optimal for Atreides to buy insurance. And claiming he is mooching are stupid. He's paying a $1000 annual contribution to other people's healthcare with 0 returns for himself. It is also Alaska. Fall off a snowmobile once, or get plowed into by some drunk on the icy roads, and boy you will be needing that health insurance.
The insurance policies I checked that were on the cheap end weren't going to help at all for any of those occasions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
