On June 29 2012 10:49 STYDawn wrote: What I have to say about Healthcare can be summarized in this video.
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
i almost want to puke, good job. you should take a second and think about yourself etc, it's sickening you think it's even acceptable to say such things, let alone be convinced you're somewhat morally valuable as a human being when you have such ideas.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
Service that I need? hmmm, where have I heard that b4??? Oh right in those TV commercials that advertise completely useles shit and say i "need" it.
So what are you, the government's salesman? Are you going to get a million dollars and a warm pat on the shoulder by some government bureacrat?
man find me these tv commercials that sell me useless shit which would help millions of americans
Doesn't socialized medicine really work to the benefit of the guy...
Who never saved a penny, instead spent it on cigarettes, alcohol at bars, and unhealthy fast food and snacks? Or gambled all his money away? And then at the end of the day... he still get free treatment for his diabetes, liver damage, cancer, and the multiple problems that fatties get.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
That is what the government is doing to you, it forces you to believe that the free market sucks so you have to rely on the gov't for everything. Bread and circuses, thats where we are going, and thats what killed the Roman republic
You aren't a very good historian.
Panis et circenses, as the term was known as, or bread and circuses, referred to the food and entertainment that the empire gave out to please citizens.
Note the key word here: EMPIRE-the republic had no such policy.
What killed the empire was a mix of factors: 1) The spread of Christianity 2)The inability of the empire to protect its own borders 3)Barbarians running amok in the streets of Rome.
QED read a high school textbook before you embarrass yourself.
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
Because you think anybody who can't afford health care in the US, which is very expensive, is automatically a wretched drunk or drug addict. Unless you're trolling, you have an extreme lack of empathy for people less fortunate than you.
Read a previous post. If a I were part of a community who actually thinks someone who needs an operation is useful to society, I would donate to help that guy. I think that money should be spent wisely, don't you? But if it were up to the government, a drunk bastard would be payed out of taxpayer's pockets/ the hospital's pockets, depending if the gov't fronts the hospitals bill or not.
I honestly don't want to be part of a system who keeps criminals and drug addicts alive with my money when i grow up.
On June 29 2012 12:06 Epocalypse wrote: Doesn't socialized medicine really work to the benefit of the guy...
Who never saved a penny, instead spent it on cigarettes, alcohol at bars, and unhealthy fast food and snacks? Or gambled all his money away? And then at the end of the day... he still get free treatment for his diabetes, liver damage, cancer, and the multiple problems that fatties get.
Yes. Everyone who can't afford health care is an immoral degenerate who deserves to die. You may rest comfortably.
Oh, so when you grow up. So you don't actually pay taxes or work STYDawn. Thanks for confirming that you can't vote, ergo you're a child.
Josealtron you're right. I wanted to walk away from this thread before I got sucked into it and I didn't want to heap on further insults. I guess this alone was just petty and I just elaborate on why his opinion no longer matters to me.
1. If you're not an American paying taxes and you don't have an exceedingly insightful outlook from your own life or experiences your opinions are rather useless. That isn't to say no one underage can post or no non-Americans can post. But the ability to have relevant commentary on the events in America is influenced on whether or not you are American.
If I were to, say, read a article about Australia banning video games, I would have to put forth much more effort to make a worthwhile post because it is so far removed from my life. I could just so happen to be friends with a lot of Australians and understand their view on the matter and share it. It's not impossible or wrong for me to write something worth reading but the burden is definitely higher.
2. Making generalized statements is never the key to helpful or healthy discourse. I don't care how many sensational stories of someone gaming the system you can come up with as long as the system works for the majority. So what if a few criminals abuse the system? They, chances are, were criminals before they attempted to defraud medical insurance. It's not like the introduction of available health coverage turned them into fraudsters. That argument is rubbish.
It is worth saying however, "I hope that they have stringent rules in place to keep drug abusers and criminals from depleting ordinary citizens tax income".
3. The whole morality shit that's going through this thread and why I chose to point out his childish opinions were not important to me. Chances are, from the callous and careless way he posts, the worst thing that has happened to him was detention and his cat dying. I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility that he has had a difficult and tremendous life that has matured him beyond his years. I'm just saying it is entirely unlikely and his shitty ascetic (or misanthropic) deep&edgy comments are a marked attempt at immaturity at best and trolling at worst.
As I assumed point 3 when I wrote this post pre edit, I did not deign myself to respond in a thought out manner to what is probably just a troll. Even if he was sincere, he will learn nothing from anyone in this thread and go on his merry way. He will forget about this thread, these posts, any points in them, and live life. Eventually he will grow into an adult and not say such reprehensible garbage. Unless he gets an internship at Fox News but that's pure life theorycrafting.
So, yeah, my post was worthless but I did not deem his arguments worth my time. I only wanted to point out his admission that he has no right to decide how our country is run until he becomes an adult.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
Because you think anybody who can't afford health care in the US, which is very expensive, is automatically a wretched drunk or drug addict. Unless you're trolling, you have an extreme lack of empathy for people less fortunate than you.
Read a previous post. If a I were part of a community who actually thinks someone who needs an operation is useful to society, I would donate to help that guy. I think that money should be spent wisely, don't you? But if it were up to the government, a drunk bastard would be payed out of taxpayer's pockets/ the hospital's pockets, depending if the gov't fronts the hospitals bill or not.
I honestly don't want to be part of a system who keeps criminals and drug addicts alive with my money when i grow up.
As a child, you don't pay taxes. When you do, you'll realize that everybody in this country, including yourself, pays lots of money every year to things they don't want to or agree with. In this case, what you are saying you don't want to do is to tax, slightly, the richest people in the country in order to offer life-saving care to people who don't make much money.
Every day, thousands of people who are loved by the community do not receive care they need. For every fundraiser or 'deposit a quarter for little jimmy's cancer treatments' jars you see, there are 10x as many you don't. It is not just addicts. Many people are poor despite being moral and hard-working.
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
[quote] Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Healthcare is not health insurance. You do not need health insurance to get healthcare.
No pre-existing conditions is the norm for all types of insurance. You cannot insure a boat that has already sunk!
Insurance premiums are not calculated based on current costs, they are calculated based on predicted future costs. So it is indeed a form of risk management and not a pay as you go collective health payment scheme.
Okay, health insurance. My post doesn't change when you put the right words in. Just a mistype.
I understand that pre-existing conditions makes sense for other kinds of insurance. But we're not talking about other kinds of insurance, we're talking about health insurance. If pre-existing conditions does not make sense for health insurance, then it does not make sense for health insurance. If you are denying coverage to the people who actually need health insurance, then the system is broken. End of story. There's really nothing more to it than that.
To the last point, it's both. Current costs are also a factor. Obviously. And saying "it's a form of risk management" is a complete non-sequitor. Of course it's a form of risk management. And how do they manage that risk? By pooling the money and distributing it to the people that need it. That's what actually happens with the money. I have no idea what you think happens.
On June 29 2012 11:30 Dapper_Cad wrote: And we're back here.
The real world shows that socialised medicine results in lower costs and better health outcomes for almost everyone.
Free market fantasists ignore reality simply denying this fact, side step reality by going off on obscure philosophical tangents that prove that what we see in reality MUST be wrong or resort to moralising about how hard they work and how it's all about the lazy poor trying to take their shit.
It's all dogma pure and simple. You've been duped and they used your vanity to trap you.
It's fascinating as a testament to the power of a concerted propaganda effort to manipulate apparently intelligent individuals to hold a position which goes against their own, and pretty much everyone's, interests.
That is what the government is doing to you, it forces you to believe that the free market sucks so you have to rely on the gov't for everything. Bread and circuses, thats where we are going, and thats what killed the Roman republic
You aren't a very good historian.
Panis et circenses, as the term was known as, or bread and circuses, referred to the food and entertainment that the empire gave out to please citizens.
Note the key word here: EMPIRE-the republic had no such policy.
What killed the empire was a mix of factors: 1) The spread of Christianity 2)The inability of the empire to protect its own borders 3)Barbarians running amok in the streets of Rome.
QED read a high school textbook before you embarrass yourself.
1st: I must admit I was wrong in the term being related to the republic. However, there were GODDAMN RIOTS in the city(Rome) when grain shipments were late in the republic from Egypt. 2nd: The spread of Christianity killed the empire? The last time i read a history textbook, I'm quite sure all the Churchsdid was help protect the poor. QED read a high school textbook before you embarrass yourself. 3rd: My point really is that the Romans made citizens reliant on watever government gave them. This allowed many politicians to be "good" politicians just because they expanded government programs.
On June 29 2012 12:12 Probe1 wrote: Oh, so when you grow up. So you don't actually pay taxes or work STYDawn. Thanks for confirming that you can't vote, ergo you're a child.
Even though I agree with you, this is a pretty worthless post.
On June 29 2012 12:06 Epocalypse wrote: Doesn't socialized medicine really work to the benefit of the guy...
Who never saved a penny, instead spent it on cigarettes, alcohol at bars, and unhealthy fast food and snacks? Or gambled all his money away? And then at the end of the day... he still get free treatment for his diabetes, liver damage, cancer, and the multiple problems that fatties get.
By this logic, everything the government does is pointless because stupid people will benefit as well. Socialized medicine benefits everybody. It's ridiculous to be against it just because there's stupid people that will abuse it-there will ALWAYS be stupid people that abuse anything ever. That's like arguing that we shouldn't have cars because there's idiots that will get other people into wrecks(or in other words, hurting other people do to their own stupidity, which is comparable to forcing others to pay money due to their own stupidity). That doesn't mean we shouldn't advance as a society.
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
i almost want to puke, good job. you should take a second and think about yourself etc, it's sickening you think it's even acceptable to say such things, let alone be convinced you're somewhat morally valuable as a human being when you have such ideas.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
[quote]
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
Yes you will need medical attention someday. But it may turn out that you can afford it without insurance or it may turn out that you cannot afford it without insurance. So some will benefit from having insurance and others will pay more into it than they ever receive back in benefits. In other words some win and some lose.
So no, everyone will not need health insurance. This does not mean that mandatory health insurance is a bad idea - just that the need argument doesn't hold water. You need healthcare not health insurance.
You could have a single payer system that does not involve insurance, correct?
main pts: Extra "taxes" Extra premiums Forced to buy insurance Worse healthcare because people who pays for health care dont get priority over people who dont pay
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
Because you think anybody who can't afford health care in the US, which is very expensive, is automatically a wretched drunk or drug addict. Unless you're trolling, you have an extreme lack of empathy for people less fortunate than you.
Read a previous post. If a I were part of a community who actually thinks someone who needs an operation is useful to society, I would donate to help that guy. I think that money should be spent wisely, don't you? But if it were up to the government, a drunk bastard would be payed out of taxpayer's pockets/ the hospital's pockets, depending if the gov't fronts the hospitals bill or not.
I honestly don't want to be part of a system who keeps criminals and drug addicts alive with my money when i grow up.
As a child, you don't pay taxes. When you do, you'll realize that everybody in this country, including yourself, pays lots of money every year to things they don't want to or agree with. In this case, what you are saying you don't want to do is to tax, slightly, the richest people in the country in order to offer life-saving care to people who don't make much money.
Every day, thousands of people who are loved by the community do not receive care they need. For every fundraiser or 'deposit a quarter for little jimmy's cancer treatments' jars you see, there are 10x as many you don't. It is not just addicts. Many people are poor despite being moral and hard-working.
Life-saving care.. Offer life-saving care to some criminal and it'll be life-killing. You fail to understand my point, life-saving for the right ppl who deserve treatment.
TBH, the richest people in the country can do anything, its the ffing gov't that lets them to. If you find this disgusting, don't complain to me, I can't do anything about it, go organize a gov't
thousands of people who are loved by the community, Im not talking about loved by the community, I am talking about someone who is important to the community.
It would be a huge drain on society to help every freakin person who is loved by the community and needs help
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
Nope. You're only looking at it from the consumer perspective. You can certainly make a "profit" off of health insurance if you get unexpectedly sick. The insurance company pools the money from all it's funders, skims some off the top, and gives it to the sick people it's covering. That's actually how it works. To say it's "insuring against risk" or something is just putting fancy words on top of what is actually happening with the money. There is no way you can "just pay for yourself" with health insurance. It literally makes no sense.
The fact is that "pre-existing conditions" was bullshit from back to front. The healthcare companies used it to get out of paying people their dues or refusing from covering people who actually need healthcare. That's a serious problem. When healthcare companies are not covering people who actually need healthcare, there's a problem. They aren't doing their job. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. I don't care that it isn't "fair" to the healthcare companies or the people's premiums. If the people who need healthcare can't get it then the system is broken.
Obamacare would be a good competitor to healthcare companies. But the problem is the mandate, which forces you to pay no matter what. So you're paying for a service that you don't want.
No, its making you pay for a service that you need and will inevitably use instead of making others pay for it - or allowing you to die i the streets because you don't have it.
How will someone 'inevitably' need health insurance?
Because, someday, you will inevitably get sick. If you're 20 its hard to contemplate. When you're 60, and almost certainly long before then, you will need to spend lots of money on a doctor to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If you can't afford it, you're just fucked.
That's not correct. Insurance only works if some need it and others don't. Otherwise it is financing and not insurance.
What is not correct? The only 2 points I brought are: You will need medical attention someday, and that some people can't afford the care they need. I don't think either of those can be disputed.
Yes you will need medical attention someday. But it may turn out that you can afford it without insurance or it may turn out that you cannot afford it without insurance. So some will benefit from having insurance and others will pay more into it than they ever receive back in benefits. In other words some win and some lose.
So no, everyone will not need health insurance. This does not mean that mandatory health insurance is a bad idea - just that the need argument doesn't hold water. You need healthcare not health insurance.
You could have a single payer system that does not involve insurance, correct?
Not everyone's cost/benefit ratio will be the same. I accept the slight tax increase for the richest people in the country in order to provide health care for the poor.
I don't understand how you went from your 1st paragraph to 'So no, everyone will not need health insurance'. If you have a super awesome idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it, without health insurance, I'm all ears.
Your last point does not even make sense... Everyone has to pay... I find if funny how people keep on saying stuff without actually educating themselves. You are paying in taxes already for people who do not currently have insurance. All this does is that it will now save you from having to pay for those who do not have insurance. If you already have insurance you are going to get a rebate in August from your insurance FYI. You are not forced to buy insurance. You can select not to, but will have to pay a tax equivalent to $95 or 1% of your salary. Whichever is higher. There is no tax if you have insurance by 2014. Premiums went up last year by 7%. They were estimated to go up this year 9% with Obamacare. Without Obamacare they were estimated to go up 12%. All of your points are invalid.
1: Everyone has to pay, technically i guess they do. Sorry, i guess my wording was bit misleading, what i meant was that people don't exactly have a penalty for going to the doctors office every day.
2: Just to troll: Im a teenager, so I technically don't. But all joking aside, people do pay for people who don't. I find this Welfare society somewhat disgusting. There are people who go to the emergency room, get operated on, and don't pay.
3. 1% of someones salary, the average middle class income is 60k. thats $600! So its buy for some crappy service, and don't buy and get penalized heavily.
4. Your pt 3 is a tax. Buy or get punished=TAX. 5. Premiums, as in private healthcare premiums? look, Im not against government offering healthcare, but I am against government forcing people to rely on it. Obamacare can prove to be an effective way to compete with healthcare companies. But really, it goes back to having to pay for crap service even if you don't want to.
Sounds like you are in favor of not operating on people who can't afford it? That is cold shit man. Have you never known anyone who needed a life or limb saving surgery?
It's fucked up how you don't even pay taxes because you're a teenager and you're already pissed as hell that they are being raised. Leave home, be poor, get sick, and come back to the discussion.
Look, now were getting into moral values. I have moral values, tbh. But look, these people got operated on, and instead of being grateful, don't pay at all and just leave. If the guy was important to the community, then the community would pressure the hospital or raise money for the guy some way or another. But if the guy was just a high-school dropout who collected cans all his life, it is better if he dies.
If a hospital didn't have to cover these disgusting losses by wretched people like this, the money would go to lowering costs for people who actually need the costs to be lowered.
You're going to grow into a terrible human being.
Because I believe in putting money into useful areas like Education(The US needs to spend more on that) and not giving it to some poor drunk bastard a few extra months to live b4 he does something stupid and gets himself killed?
Because you think anybody who can't afford health care in the US, which is very expensive, is automatically a wretched drunk or drug addict. Unless you're trolling, you have an extreme lack of empathy for people less fortunate than you.
Read a previous post. If a I were part of a community who actually thinks someone who needs an operation is useful to society, I would donate to help that guy. I think that money should be spent wisely, don't you? But if it were up to the government, a drunk bastard would be payed out of taxpayer's pockets/ the hospital's pockets, depending if the gov't fronts the hospitals bill or not.
I honestly don't want to be part of a system who keeps criminals and drug addicts alive with my money when i grow up.
As a child, you don't pay taxes. When you do, you'll realize that everybody in this country, including yourself, pays lots of money every year to things they don't want to or agree with. In this case, what you are saying you don't want to do is to tax, slightly, the richest people in the country in order to offer life-saving care to people who don't make much money.
Every day, thousands of people who are loved by the community do not receive care they need. For every fundraiser or 'deposit a quarter for little jimmy's cancer treatments' jars you see, there are 10x as many you don't. It is not just addicts. Many people are poor despite being moral and hard-working.
Life-saving care.. Offer life-saving care to some criminal and it'll be life-killing. You fail to understand my point, life-saving for the right ppl who deserve treatment.
TBH, the richest people in the country can do anything, its the ffing gov't that lets them to. If you find this disgusting, don't complain to me, I can't do anything about it, go organize a gov't
thousands of people who are loved by the community, Im not talking about loved by the community, I am talking about someone who is important to the community.
It would be a huge drain on society to help every freakin person who is loved by the community and needs help
This is a ridiculous post. If you wish to discuss further feel free to PM me.
EPT
