| Forum Index > General Forum |
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I still don't understand how Dennis Kucinich voted No. He's an idiot. "Oh it's not single payer I'm so pure I'm voting no." If it hadn't passed we would have fucking crucified him. I'm sure, though, that if he were the deciding vote, he'd have voted yes. | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On November 10 2009 03:19 agorist wrote: I love how logic and reason is left at the door when debating against the indoctrinated. Sure, I'd love absolutely everyone to have insurance and access to great medical care. I'd love everyone to be able to afford the best education. I'd love everyone to be able to adequately feed and provide for their children. The important question to ask is, are these goals attainable and are they sustainable? The reality is that resources and money is finite, and, the foolish quest for faux-egalitarianism will only end up with us facing a net-loss due to the inefficiencies of government. Inflation is a slow killer. Try reading this paper; it's actually really short and does a good part in describing the windfalls inherit in usurping the free-market. http://mises.org/midroad.asp Ah, the wonderful things economics classes breed. If you want to look at things from that perspective, yes those goals are easily met and sustained. It's simply a matter of priorities. Is the US working toward any of this? Most certainly not. We're too busy trying to retain our hegemony over the rest of the world. We spend ridiculous amounts of resources in an effort to do nothing but destroy the resources of other countries (or plunder them for ourselves). Then again, it's much easier to sell war to the masses than charity. Every argument of your kind ends right here, though. Cut out the real wasteful spending, and suddenly all kinds of things become possible. The only problem we start facing becomes overpopulation, which isn't even a problem if we're responsible and caring toward other people in the first place. Instead, we decide to have 12 kids because we can, or because our religion tells us it's a good idea. Of course, most everyone in power (not simply the politicians, but the companies they represent) is solely concerned about bettering themselves, without a thought for the future or anyone that gets in their way. Instead of working toward more efficient renewable resources, let's make as much money as possible on nonrenewable ones while we still can! This is a common theme when you start talking about an unrestricted free market. The market is not concerned with any of the goals we're discussing here, and usually works in the opposite direction. This is why for-profit health care is a scary, scary entity. It should scare even the most right-wing person when they have to take medicine that was created with profit as it's primary goal. And more importantly, are you asserting that it's the government's role to keep you alive? I'm sure then that you're OK with a government prohibiting you from the right to end your life. I'm also sure you'd be OK with the government prohibiting you from eating unhealthy foods and using narcotics. Twisting words is fun! I'm not saying the government has an obligation to keep you alive, I'm saying that if the government isn't even able to keep you alive when you need it, there's a serious problem. And let's not BS around and say that hospitals can't refuse to take you if you're dying, because that's far from the point. Every illness is not life threatening immediately. Those with solid health care, who do not have to worry about how they're going to pay doctor's bills, will have any health issues they face taken care of at nearly the earliest possible time. If they have any strange symptoms that are not easily diagnosed, they can spend the time going from doctor to specialist until something is found - many times saving their life thanks to an early catch of cancer. Everyone who doesn't have this luxury has to constantly wonder how they're ever going to be out of medical debt if they get seriously ill. Many of these people end up staving off treatable diseases until they've become much worse. The irony in all of this discussion is that this bill isn't even that good for those of us who do support free health care. You could make a lot of money investing in insurance companies if this passes the senate, if that says anything. Of course, you'd probably just complain about the taxes incurred on the money in that case... Also worthy of noting, is how by far and large the only people who seem to have a serious problem with health care are Americans. It never ceases to embarrass me as to how callous a country we are. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32158 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:06 QibingZero wrote: Every argument of your kind ends right here, though. Cut out the real wasteful spending, and suddenly all kinds of things become possible. Yeah, but trying to pass a huge health care bill and then go after wasteful spending is ass backwards. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:13 BlackJack wrote: The whole "if you're against socialized healthcare then you don't care about people's lives" is as stupid as the "if you don't support the war then you're against the troops" Healthcare saves lives. War... saves troops' lives? | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:17 motbob wrote: Healthcare saves lives. War... saves troops' lives? reading comprehension ftw | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:13 BlackJack wrote: The whole "if you're against socialized healthcare then you don't care about people's lives" is as stupid as the "if you don't support the war then you're against the troops" Perhaps it would help if anyone who was against socialized health care actually had an argument that wasn't blatant self-interest ("I don't want to pay for someone else's health care"). It's hard to assume you care when all the objective evidence says otherwise. On November 10 2009 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I still don't understand how Dennis Kucinich voted No. His vote was strongly against the reliance on the current infrastructure. The insurance companies plan to profit from this, even though they're a large part of the reason health care in the US is so costly and ineffective in the first place. Basically, the government is helping people get health insurance, not health care.... and people wonder why many Americans think the only thing government does is add an extra step to things. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Don't be condescending. He was drawing a parallel between the two arguments. my point is that they're not equivalent statements. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:26 QibingZero wrote: Perhaps it would help if anyone who was against socialized health care actually had an argument that wasn't blatant self-interest ("I don't want to pay for someone else's health care"). It's hard to assume you care when all the objective evidence says otherwise. His vote was strongly against the reliance on the current infrastructure. The insurance companies plan to profit from this, even though they're a large part of the reason health care in the US is so costly and ineffective in the first place. Basically, the government is helping people get health insurance, not health care.... and people wonder why many Americans think the only thing government does is add an extra step to things. Your argument is that people are selfish because they won't give you free stuff. | ||
|
LeoTheLion
China958 Posts
| ||
|
mangomango
United States265 Posts
| ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:43 mangomango wrote: It's gonna pass after a lot of hand wringing and arm twisting. Oh and watering down to the point that it's not worth the paper it will be printed on. We should have a single payer system. your argument is invalid | ||
|
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
Its not like the scientific debate about social market economy is clear cut in terms of it costing more money than it generates or vice versa. It kinda shocks me that people seem oblivious to the fact that there are good economical arguments for a social market economy and even come up with horseshit like "stealing". Try to inform yourself a lil next time pls. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:30 motbob wrote: Don't be condescending. He was drawing a parallel between the two arguments. my point is that they're not equivalent statements. Except health insurance *doesn't* save people's lives. It just prevents them from getting a huge bill after their lives have been saved. What happens when people can't pay that? They just don't pay. It happens ALL the time. Someone gets in a car accident/gunshot wound/etc. The hospital doesn't dump them on the street because they can't pay. It's not like people are *prevented* from having their lives saved in critical moments by costs. It's just dealing with the huge bill afterward. And arguably, if your life just got saved, you DO owe that person in some large form. You don't have some right to get out of that. You have a right for your life to be preserved. You don't have a right to the money that pays for such things. You could argue that large medical costs have some implicit pressure on someone's decision making in those sorts of situations, but to argue that healthcare as a right is synonymous to the right to life is just wrong. | ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
Communitarianism the new word yo! a big FUCK YOU to the disabled... apparently, none of u guys actually knows what this healthcare bill is really about. | ||
|
betaben
681 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:32 LeoTheLion wrote: Wait. I thought it wasn't free. People still have to pay insurance. Government is just starting a state run insurance company. this is the issue - currently, people that pay insurance get the insurance, and some don't pay it and don't get it. proposed, is that those that pay provide insurance for everyone - even those that don't pay. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
So there will have to be changes to pass the bill in the Senate. Olympia Snowe, a Republican, has supported a "trigger" public option which would only deploy it if premiums fail to fall, which of course they won't. That or some other form of compromise will be needed to get the bill out of the Senate by the barest margin of 60-40. At that point, it's a question of whether Pelosi can keep the liberal members of her caucus on board with the compromise. And this depends on how big of changes Snowe demands for her support of the bill. If it is just delaying the public option with a trigger I *think* Pelosi can hold the most liberal members of her caucus in line. If, as I suspect, Snowe demands changes to the scope and cost (iirc she wanted it around $800-900 billlion, the House bill is over $1 trillion), then it will probably get bogged down in negotiations and may not pass in the Senate or the House. My read of the situation is that a public option is a vote or two shy of reality. I'll be very interested to see how this plays out in the coming weeks. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:46 TheYango wrote: Except health insurance *doesn't* save people's lives. It just prevents them from getting a huge bill after their lives have been saved. What happens when people can't pay that? They just don't pay. It happens ALL the time. Someone gets in a car accident/gunshot wound/etc. The hospital doesn't dump them on the street because they can't pay. After they are stabilized, the hospital does exactly that. You can't get treatment for ANYTHING that isn't immediately deadly without health insurance. Cancer? Heart problems? You can't say that people in the United States get free treatment for heart problems just because heart attacks are treated. My read of the situation is that a public option is a vote or two shy of reality. I'll be very interested to see how this plays out in the coming weeks. I think the public option will be in the final bill out of conference. A majority in both chambers support it so I don't see any reason why the House bill won't be the final bill. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 10 2009 05:51 motbob wrote: After they are stabilized, the hospital does exactly that. Yes. Because their life is no longer in immediate danger. Housing and feeding those without the means to do so themselves is part of existing social programs, and not the business of a hospital. I don't see how that's relevant. On November 10 2009 05:51 motbob wrote: You can't get treatment for ANYTHING that isn't immediately deadly without health insurance. Cancer? Heart problems? You can't say that people in the United States get free treatment for heart problems just because heart attacks are treated. Point taken, but it's questionable how relevant the right to life in its most explicit form is to diseases that affect things months or years down the line. Like I said, you can make the argument that the right to life relates to universal healthcare, but you can't just say something on the order of "People have a right to life, ergo governments should provide health insurance. Q.E.D." It's not that simple. | ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
Yamato Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
WardiTV Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
