|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 28 2012 05:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:13 Domus wrote:On June 28 2012 03:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
seems like an incredible oversimplification of the issue, dont you think? the "justification" is cost and government involvement. who should bear the cost, and should the government impose individual mandates on its citizens? reasonable minds differ as to these issues. No, I don't think it is an oversimplification at all. It is actually exactly what it is. Everybody helps so that everybody has access to good, affordable healthcare. Not doing it and leaving a large portion of a population behind to suffer is a grave injustice. It is simply not reasonable, it is selfish and shortsighted. Someone mentioned that people differ on the how. So how should it be done then? Either you get a government controlled healthcare through taxes, and then everybody pays it through their taxes. Or everybody pays a certain fee for a service, and costs are covered that way. What other way is there that equally spread the burden across the citizens and give everybody access to good care? weird that you would quote and then cut out the embedded quote, but whatever. nobody is going to argue that universal health care is a bad thing. that discussion is not going to happen. the question is how to make universal health care a possibility. thats where the argument is and your statement, which you have deleted from the quote, did not address that at all.
Yeah, I don't know why I cut the quotes...I usually do, don't have a reason for it...But you did not answer my question, how would you make universal health care possible?
|
On June 28 2012 05:29 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:25 Romantic wrote:
If your government is ending the experiment, they are stupid. You need someone capable of understanding markets and the long run... Prices go up. So what happens? More people become dentists to make money and you end up with higher supply and more competition. End result? Cheaper, competitive dentistry.
The problem with this is that people are too stupid to let the process work. The exact same thing applies to rent control. If you prevent people from making money in field X, field X becomes much less attractive both by number and quality of people who go in to it. So explain to me, how cheap is healthcare, and how cheap is dentistry in the USA? Give me some prices here. Because here the government is actually actively putting pressure on companies to keep their prices low. So just give me a price, let's compare and see who is better off. Liberalism does not work in every case, I could go in-depth, but it does not take much thought to figure out in what situation there is no actual competition on a market and what this does to prices.
How can you compare the dentist market in the US to a dentist market where the government subsidizes and centrally plans prices? This is like when people say socialist health care systems spend less. You can't make the comparison because the government decides what the prices are and how much they will pay. The entire thing is planned centrally. How do you know how much your countrymen would spend on health care if they were allowed?
I called, got an appointment for the next week, and had a cavity filled with tooth colored composite filling for $100, which is ~11 hours at minimum wage in Washington. No waiting in the office. Hell, the receptionist was even really cute. Does that help? lol
|
On June 28 2012 05:18 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 03:28 Enki wrote:
Probably because of health insurance. Healthcare here is a commodity and not a right, insurance is big business and has alot of lobbying power in congress. Yeah, then it makes sense I guess...I think people don't understand that if the costs are spread across everyone, then individually you actually pay less. And having a government that control these things can actually be a very good thing. I will give a simple example. In the Netherlands we have started an experiment where the prices of dental care are no longer under control of the government. In 3 months the prices went up by 10% on average, with 60% rise in cost in some areas. Needless to say, the government is now planning to terminate the project and take back control, because not every market is suitable for capitalism/liberalism.
Wish our government would fix dental like that. It's just too fucking expensive unless you are really lucky to have good dental insurance. They should honestly be together since poor oral health can effect your whole body and even kill you. I just imagine all the people we could save from pain or having to undergo unnecessary procedures by just covering yearly visits to the doctor and dentist. It's not like that costs that much either, its a drop in the fucking bucket compared to how much we pay for national security every single year.
It's a joke how we pay so much to protect against superficial threats while tens of thousands of people are dying from simple and treatable conditions. I don't see it changing anytime soon either unfortunantely. People and politicians just fucking cry about what the other party does wrong because they are too lazy to help their fellow countryman. Washington is a joke.
|
On June 28 2012 05:28 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:26 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2012 05:12 Romantic wrote:On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. Has nobody ever died in a socialist health care system in a way that could have been prevented or would have been prevented in the US? There are no free lunches. Socializing your health care and having the State rather than the price mechanism ration it isn't magic. If you think a price mechanism is all that factors into the distribution of health insurance here in the US then you are sorely mistaken. All I have to say is "pre-existing condition". And where are the stats to back these claims of satiety on the part of Americans being happy with the current system of health insurance? If anything, the topic is incredibly muddled in this respect. Some slightly dated but relevant reading on the difficult to ascertain nature of public health insurance opinion. http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(CC) Insurance.pdf It doesn't work fully in the US because the government has already intervened to a massive degree and fucked up beyond belief. That is no argument for further government intervention.
Well I'll continue to get into rational debates with people who acknowledge the complexity of the issue at hand while you enjoy your time in a fantasy world of simple problems with simple solutions.
|
On June 28 2012 05:38 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. i don't generally approve of taking money away from the poorer sectors of society to give to the richer sectors of society, which is exactly what the mandate does. If the system is in any way similar to the European system, then it is actually there to protect everyone, including the poor, and give them access to good healthcare, just like the middle-class and the rich have access to it. It does not change my situation whatsoever if the USA implements this, all I can say is that I am very happy about the system we have in Europe, and it is worth investing in, and I wish it for all Americans too to have access to such a system.
well, i've heard all the horror stories of various European healthcare systems and i'm not exactly eager to change my currently awesome healthcare for... well for what they've got which by all accounts is a lesser system. now im not exactly the most educated person on the issue, but im pretty sure a lot of what i've read ain't lies.
it is illegal in the US to refuse ER treatment. people still get treated, they just have to pay for it. also, the mandate requires the young, who are traditionally the poorest and use healthcare the least to pay for the old, who are traditionally the most wealthy and use healthcare the most. not fair, yo! why am i paying for grandpa when grandpa has got more money than me?
|
On June 28 2012 05:40 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2012 05:13 Domus wrote:On June 28 2012 03:30 dAPhREAk wrote:
seems like an incredible oversimplification of the issue, dont you think? the "justification" is cost and government involvement. who should bear the cost, and should the government impose individual mandates on its citizens? reasonable minds differ as to these issues. No, I don't think it is an oversimplification at all. It is actually exactly what it is. Everybody helps so that everybody has access to good, affordable healthcare. Not doing it and leaving a large portion of a population behind to suffer is a grave injustice. It is simply not reasonable, it is selfish and shortsighted. Someone mentioned that people differ on the how. So how should it be done then? Either you get a government controlled healthcare through taxes, and then everybody pays it through their taxes. Or everybody pays a certain fee for a service, and costs are covered that way. What other way is there that equally spread the burden across the citizens and give everybody access to good care? weird that you would quote and then cut out the embedded quote, but whatever. nobody is going to argue that universal health care is a bad thing. that discussion is not going to happen. the question is how to make universal health care a possibility. thats where the argument is and your statement, which you have deleted from the quote, did not address that at all. Yeah, I don't know why I cut the quotes...I usually do, don't have a reason for it...But you did not answer my question, how would you make universal health care possible?
i dont claim to have any specialized knowledge in the subject, but make everyone pay their fair share through taxes and have some government body manage negotiations with insurance health care providers.
edit: i like the canadian model of high taxes and more government benefits.
|
On June 28 2012 05:41 Romantic wrote:
I called, got an appointment for the next week, and had a cavity filled with tooth colored composite filling for $100, which is ~11 hours at minimum wage in Washington. No waiting in the office. Hell, the receptionist was even really cute. Does that help? lol
And this is why crap like Michael Moore's "Sicko" pisses me off. It totally misrepresents how good the US healthcare system is for most people. As another example, I had a badly infected ingrown toenail last month. I called up a specialist's office, booked an appointment for that day, got the partial toe-nail removal surgery done that day, and was on my way to recovery. No lines. No waits. I just got it done.
|
On June 28 2012 05:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:28 Romantic wrote:On June 28 2012 05:26 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2012 05:12 Romantic wrote:On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. Has nobody ever died in a socialist health care system in a way that could have been prevented or would have been prevented in the US? There are no free lunches. Socializing your health care and having the State rather than the price mechanism ration it isn't magic. If you think a price mechanism is all that factors into the distribution of health insurance here in the US then you are sorely mistaken. All I have to say is "pre-existing condition". And where are the stats to back these claims of satiety on the part of Americans being happy with the current system of health insurance? If anything, the topic is incredibly muddled in this respect. Some slightly dated but relevant reading on the difficult to ascertain nature of public health insurance opinion. http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(CC) Insurance.pdf It doesn't work fully in the US because the government has already intervened to a massive degree and fucked up beyond belief. That is no argument for further government intervention. Well I'll continue to get into rational debates with people who acknowledge the complexity of the issue at hand while you enjoy your time in a fantasy world of simple problems with simple solutions.
The more complex things get, the more government tends to mess it up. I can only imagine a government trying to create a language *shudder*.
Health care is complex and that is exactly why the federal government's legislature and slew of lobbyists and aides cannot produce a magic health care system. I do not think the problem nor the solution are simple, you've just attributed it to me or misunderstood. If I thought it were simple I'd be more partial to the government doing.
I should add that there aren't any "solutions" in so far as resources will always be scarce.
|
On June 28 2012 05:55 Romantic wrote:
The more complex things get, the more government tends to mess it up. I can only imagine a government trying to create a language *shudder*.
Worked well enough in Korea.
|
While goverments have not invented languages some made everyone use "the right" language and by that over time basically irradicating various dialects/sub-languages. France for instance...
It's actually not that hard to do... Just punish harshly when someone disobeys...
|
On June 28 2012 05:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:38 Domus wrote:On June 28 2012 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. i don't generally approve of taking money away from the poorer sectors of society to give to the richer sectors of society, which is exactly what the mandate does. If the system is in any way similar to the European system, then it is actually there to protect everyone, including the poor, and give them access to good healthcare, just like the middle-class and the rich have access to it. It does not change my situation whatsoever if the USA implements this, all I can say is that I am very happy about the system we have in Europe, and it is worth investing in, and I wish it for all Americans too to have access to such a system. well, i've heard all the horror stories of various European healthcare systems and i'm not exactly eager to change my currently awesome healthcare for... well for what they've got which by all accounts is a lesser system. now im not exactly the most educated person on the issue, but im pretty sure a lot of what i've read ain't lies. it is illegal in the US to refuse ER treatment. people still get treated, they just have to pay for it. also, the mandate requires the young, who are traditionally the poorest and use healthcare the least to pay for the old, who are traditionally the most wealthy and use healthcare the most. not fair, yo! why am i paying for grandpa when grandpa has got more money than me?
So, barring the obviously flawed conflation of "horror stories of various European healthcare systems" with "by all accounts", what about the 46 million or so individuals who were without health insurance before Obamacare? Where's your lamenting the "horror stories" of fellow US citizens, because there are millions of them.
|
On June 28 2012 06:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 28 2012 05:38 Domus wrote:On June 28 2012 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. i don't generally approve of taking money away from the poorer sectors of society to give to the richer sectors of society, which is exactly what the mandate does. If the system is in any way similar to the European system, then it is actually there to protect everyone, including the poor, and give them access to good healthcare, just like the middle-class and the rich have access to it. It does not change my situation whatsoever if the USA implements this, all I can say is that I am very happy about the system we have in Europe, and it is worth investing in, and I wish it for all Americans too to have access to such a system. well, i've heard all the horror stories of various European healthcare systems and i'm not exactly eager to change my currently awesome healthcare for... well for what they've got which by all accounts is a lesser system. now im not exactly the most educated person on the issue, but im pretty sure a lot of what i've read ain't lies. it is illegal in the US to refuse ER treatment. people still get treated, they just have to pay for it. also, the mandate requires the young, who are traditionally the poorest and use healthcare the least to pay for the old, who are traditionally the most wealthy and use healthcare the most. not fair, yo! why am i paying for grandpa when grandpa has got more money than me? So, barring the obviously flawed conflation of "horror stories of various European healthcare systems" with "by all accounts", what about the 46 million or so individuals who were without health insurance before Obamacare? Where's your lamenting the "horror stories" of fellow US citizens, because there are millions of them.
Most of them are likely voluntarily uninsured or illegal immigrants. I use voluntarily uninsured in a wider sense than simply not wanting health insurance. If you want health insurance, claim you can't afford it, but buy yourself a new TV and regularly dine out don't tell me you actually want health insurance. Every one wants insurance, some people just choose other things more.
I bought a book called Generation Debt by an American liberal author; many of the stories involved, "I spend all my money on partying and vacations and now I can't afford to get my tooth removed and I have college debt. I am so scared. Government please help" lol. Reading their honest testimony probably made me less sympathetic to them. I wouldn't call that person involuntarily uninsured.
|
On June 28 2012 05:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:41 Romantic wrote:
I called, got an appointment for the next week, and had a cavity filled with tooth colored composite filling for $100, which is ~11 hours at minimum wage in Washington. No waiting in the office. Hell, the receptionist was even really cute. Does that help? lol And this is why crap like Michael Moore's "Sicko" pisses me off. It totally misrepresents how good the US healthcare system is for most people. As another example, I had a badly infected ingrown toenail last month. I called up a specialist's office, booked an appointment for that day, got the partial toe-nail removal surgery done that day, and was on my way to recovery. No lines. No waits. I just got it done.
Although my first impulse is to blast y'all with a number of personal anecdotes in which friends and family of mine have suffered dramatically at the hands of the current system (both with and without insurance), I figure why not get back to reasonable evidence. If you have any sort of pronounced interest in the state of healthcare in the US, give this a proper reading
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue Brief/2011/Jul/1532_Squires_US_hlt_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf
Most of the evidentiary methodology is sound, and the end result is a troubling picture of healthcare in the US.
Romantic, you so easily assume the careless indignation of those who you label "voluntarily uninsured". This is not an intellectually honest way to go about getting a proper idea of what is actually going on. For every lazy, lascivious welfare mom there are dozens of hard working Americans who are struggling to feed their children and afford healthcare. You assume the truth in our collective public image of McDonalds overindulgence, I do not. Progress must still be worked towards nonetheless.
|
On June 28 2012 06:08 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 06:00 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2012 05:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 28 2012 05:38 Domus wrote:On June 28 2012 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. i don't generally approve of taking money away from the poorer sectors of society to give to the richer sectors of society, which is exactly what the mandate does. If the system is in any way similar to the European system, then it is actually there to protect everyone, including the poor, and give them access to good healthcare, just like the middle-class and the rich have access to it. It does not change my situation whatsoever if the USA implements this, all I can say is that I am very happy about the system we have in Europe, and it is worth investing in, and I wish it for all Americans too to have access to such a system. well, i've heard all the horror stories of various European healthcare systems and i'm not exactly eager to change my currently awesome healthcare for... well for what they've got which by all accounts is a lesser system. now im not exactly the most educated person on the issue, but im pretty sure a lot of what i've read ain't lies. it is illegal in the US to refuse ER treatment. people still get treated, they just have to pay for it. also, the mandate requires the young, who are traditionally the poorest and use healthcare the least to pay for the old, who are traditionally the most wealthy and use healthcare the most. not fair, yo! why am i paying for grandpa when grandpa has got more money than me? So, barring the obviously flawed conflation of "horror stories of various European healthcare systems" with "by all accounts", what about the 46 million or so individuals who were without health insurance before Obamacare? Where's your lamenting the "horror stories" of fellow US citizens, because there are millions of them. Most of them are likely voluntarily uninsured or illegal immigrants. I use voluntarily uninsured in a wider sense than simply not wanting health insurance. If you want health insurance, claim you can't afford it, but buy yourself a new TV and regularly dine out don't tell me you actually want health insurance. Every one wants insurance, some people just choose other things more. I bought a book called Generation Debt by an American liberal author; many of the stories involved, "I spend all my money on partying and vacations and now I can't afford to get my tooth removed and I have college debt. I am so scared. Government please help" lol. Reading their honest testimony probably made me less sympathetic to them. I wouldn't call that person involuntarily uninsured.
Yes...of course! 46 million people do not have insurance because they are out partying! So poverty simply does not exist in the USA, good to know! Don't you see how flawed your argument is? Anyway...I guess I am done discussing this in this thread. It is quite clear what type of people are against it. The type that says, well, everything is fine with ME, I am doing ok, everybody else should just take care of their own problems! This train of thought is so self-centered, and self-obsessive, such strong individualism has really let mankind take a turn for the worse...
|
The reasons for the high cost of health care in the US are distinct from the changes that Obamacare hopes to enact. That's what people don't understand. The costs will still be sky high, only they will be spread around among more people, which incidentally is likely to raise the costs...
We shouldn't spend our nations wealth trying to subsidize a broken and inefficient system, we should be trying to FIX THE SYSTEM!!! All Obamacare is is another subsidy and tax increase. Then again I can't remember the last time I saw the government truly reform a broken system instead of just throwing more money at it... health care, education, foreign policy... here take some more money that will fix it. -_-
|
On June 28 2012 06:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
The reasons for the high cost of health care in the US are distinct from the changes that Obamacare hopes to enact. That's what people don't understand. The costs will still be sky high, only they will be spread around among more people, which incidentally is likely to raise the costs...
We shouldn't spend our nations wealth trying to subsidize a broken and inefficient system, we should be trying to FIX THE SYSTEM!!! All Obamacare is is another subsidy and tax increase. Then again I can't remember the last time I saw the government truly reform a broken system instead of just throwing more money at it... health care, education, foreign policy... here take some more money that will fix it. -_-
The version of Obamacare that originally hit congress looked very much more like a "FIX THE SYSTEM" type solution, only it fell victim to the relentless partisanship of the current political dynamic, both in Washington and the country itself. If one looks at the number of Representatives and Senators who effectively forced the change of the then substantial Obamacare into the toothless bitch of an act it is now and how many of them have received campaign/lobbyist support from insurance companies, the problem becomes significantly more clear. Obama and Democrats who share his platform are guilty as well, for bending over the way they did.
|
On June 27 2012 23:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 21:23 BluePanther wrote:
My personal interest: Will Scalia secure enough support to kill Wickard? My brain and gut say no, but I hope he does out of curiosity's sake. Wickard overruled would be a HUGE win for Republicans/states-rights, regardless of what else happens in the decision. As much as I'd like to see Wickard overruled, I don't see it happening. There will be a lot of language that limits Wickard, but the outright overruling of Wickard isn't necessary to get rid of the individual mandate because the question presented is different.
I know the odds are unlikely, but any retreat from wickard is interesting and affects people more than they realize.
|
On June 28 2012 05:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:41 Romantic wrote:
I called, got an appointment for the next week, and had a cavity filled with tooth colored composite filling for $100, which is ~11 hours at minimum wage in Washington. No waiting in the office. Hell, the receptionist was even really cute. Does that help? lol And this is why crap like Michael Moore's "Sicko" pisses me off. It totally misrepresents how good the US healthcare system is for most people. As another example, I had a badly infected ingrown toenail last month. I called up a specialist's office, booked an appointment for that day, got the partial toe-nail removal surgery done that day, and was on my way to recovery. No lines. No waits. I just got it done.
That's because you're a lawyer, likely with health insurance to match. The healthcare system is certainly good for us white-collar people, but we're hardly the majority.
|
On June 28 2012 05:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 05:41 Romantic wrote:
I called, got an appointment for the next week, and had a cavity filled with tooth colored composite filling for $100, which is ~11 hours at minimum wage in Washington. No waiting in the office. Hell, the receptionist was even really cute. Does that help? lol And this is why crap like Michael Moore's "Sicko" pisses me off. It totally misrepresents how good the US healthcare system is for most people. As another example, I had a badly infected ingrown toenail last month. I called up a specialist's office, booked an appointment for that day, got the partial toe-nail removal surgery done that day, and was on my way to recovery. No lines. No waits. I just got it done.
I had one when I was in junior high. The doctor even stayed late because it was really bad and he didn't want me to wait for his next opening (I ignored the infection for a long time because I am dumb). Really nice guy.
The absolute worst experience I've ever had with American health care was when I was very young and the family was on Medicaid. Doctors treated you alright. You could tell they weren't happy about taking Medicaid patients, but it was alright. Welfare office treated you like shit though.
On June 28 2012 06:13 Domus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 06:08 Romantic wrote:On June 28 2012 06:00 farvacola wrote:On June 28 2012 05:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 28 2012 05:38 Domus wrote:On June 28 2012 05:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 28 2012 02:48 Domus wrote:
I am from Europe, and when I read things like this, the USA almost looks alien, so similar yet so different. Just explain to me, what is the justification and where is the civilization in letting people become more ill, die, or in a completely desperate financial situation because of something that they did not choose (becoming ill)? All I can say is that if this is not implemented in the USA, then the US citizens are missing out on one of the greatest merits a society has, keeping each other healthy. i don't generally approve of taking money away from the poorer sectors of society to give to the richer sectors of society, which is exactly what the mandate does. If the system is in any way similar to the European system, then it is actually there to protect everyone, including the poor, and give them access to good healthcare, just like the middle-class and the rich have access to it. It does not change my situation whatsoever if the USA implements this, all I can say is that I am very happy about the system we have in Europe, and it is worth investing in, and I wish it for all Americans too to have access to such a system. well, i've heard all the horror stories of various European healthcare systems and i'm not exactly eager to change my currently awesome healthcare for... well for what they've got which by all accounts is a lesser system. now im not exactly the most educated person on the issue, but im pretty sure a lot of what i've read ain't lies. it is illegal in the US to refuse ER treatment. people still get treated, they just have to pay for it. also, the mandate requires the young, who are traditionally the poorest and use healthcare the least to pay for the old, who are traditionally the most wealthy and use healthcare the most. not fair, yo! why am i paying for grandpa when grandpa has got more money than me? So, barring the obviously flawed conflation of "horror stories of various European healthcare systems" with "by all accounts", what about the 46 million or so individuals who were without health insurance before Obamacare? Where's your lamenting the "horror stories" of fellow US citizens, because there are millions of them. Most of them are likely voluntarily uninsured or illegal immigrants. I use voluntarily uninsured in a wider sense than simply not wanting health insurance. If you want health insurance, claim you can't afford it, but buy yourself a new TV and regularly dine out don't tell me you actually want health insurance. Every one wants insurance, some people just choose other things more. I bought a book called Generation Debt by an American liberal author; many of the stories involved, "I spend all my money on partying and vacations and now I can't afford to get my tooth removed and I have college debt. I am so scared. Government please help" lol. Reading their honest testimony probably made me less sympathetic to them. I wouldn't call that person involuntarily uninsured. Yes...of course! 46 million people do not have insurance because they are out partying! So poverty simply does not exist in the USA, good to know! Don't you see how flawed your argument is? Anyway...I guess I am done discussing this in this thread. It is quite clear what type of people are against it. The type that says, well, everything is fine with ME, I am doing ok, everybody else should just take care of their own problems! This train of thought is so self-centered, and self-obsessive, such strong individualism has really let mankind take a turn for the worse...
When did we say we are all rich folks who have no problems? I cannot speak for any one else, but when I make mistakes I don't blame society and demand free things. When I was younger my family was poor, I've probably experienced much worse "first world" poverty than most people on TL.
Most of the uninsured in the US are young people\illegal immigrants, and most of them are employed but at or near the poverty line. Being young, most of them likely do not need the insurance and\or it would be very cheap if they wanted it.
The difference here is I take in to account how they could solve their problem rather than immediately telling the government to throw public money at them. My parents could have had insurance for the family and improved their earning ability. Instead they chose, day after day, to spend money on cigs\alcohol\weed\gambling\going out to eat\seeing movies\new electronics we could never afford instead of buying health insurance or paying to go to a community college.
|
On June 28 2012 06:39 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2012 23:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 27 2012 21:23 BluePanther wrote:
My personal interest: Will Scalia secure enough support to kill Wickard? My brain and gut say no, but I hope he does out of curiosity's sake. Wickard overruled would be a HUGE win for Republicans/states-rights, regardless of what else happens in the decision. As much as I'd like to see Wickard overruled, I don't see it happening. There will be a lot of language that limits Wickard, but the outright overruling of Wickard isn't necessary to get rid of the individual mandate because the question presented is different. I know the odds are unlikely, but any retreat from wickard is interesting and affects people more than they realize.
And that's the most distressing part about the Democrat/liberal position on Obamacare and the individual mandate. Having the Court strike it down is a true, unequivocal win for freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
