and it's faulty logic anyway... no, by that logic, or at least the way you interpreted it, you'd have to believe that destitute sick people somehow wanted to "steal" treatment. no, they want to be able to expect it, as a right, and not just have to "hope" for it.
USA healthcare overhaul
- Thread starter ahjteam
- Start date
and it's faulty logic anyway... no, by that logic, or at least the way you interpreted it, you'd have to believe that destitute sick people somehow wanted to "steal" treatment. no, they want to be able to expect it, as a right, and not just have to "hope" for it.
Joematthews
Member
- Dec 15, 2007
- 1,547
- 0
- 36
Joematthews
Member
- Dec 15, 2007
- 1,547
- 0
- 36
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
Charity relies on a pool of generous individuals though, thus it is not an adequate assumption that this charity will always be sustainable.
A health care system based on public taxation makes more sense because it is more reliable, and it is everyone helping each other as opposed to the select few helping the poor masses. People are fickle, and when it comes to helping each other some sort of principal needs to be set in motion, whether the greedy like it or not.
We shouldn't be giving to people based on some charitable morality, we should be distributing the load and helping the lesser because they deserve it as human beings.
paladin shredder
Member
I agree with Aaron 100% on this.
Check out this simple list of the top 10 health problems in America:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/36536-top-health-problems-america/
...and what is the solution for the majority of the problems?
1. Loose weight
2. Quit Smoking
The most common health problems are preventable by the individual. Personally, I maintain average weight and don't smoke. Why should my tax money go towards individuals who are to lazy to take care of themselves in the first place, then run up expensive and unnecessary health bills to fix problems they could have prevented? Why should the government take responsibility of the health of the individual? That's bullshit!
Don't get me wrong, if you want to eat big macs and twinkies every day and smoke a pack a day, go for it. Just don't expect me to pay for your bad decisions later on down the road, or feel any sympathy for you.
Check out this simple list of the top 10 health problems in America:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/36536-top-health-problems-america/
...and what is the solution for the majority of the problems?
1. Loose weight
2. Quit Smoking
The most common health problems are preventable by the individual. Personally, I maintain average weight and don't smoke. Why should my tax money go towards individuals who are to lazy to take care of themselves in the first place, then run up expensive and unnecessary health bills to fix problems they could have prevented? Why should the government take responsibility of the health of the individual? That's bullshit!
Don't get me wrong, if you want to eat big macs and twinkies every day and smoke a pack a day, go for it. Just don't expect me to pay for your bad decisions later on down the road, or feel any sympathy for you.
There are some things, that are good when the goverment interferes and then there are some things, where it is bad that goverment interferes. Communism failed, because they took the socialism too far and made even working for the goverment compulsory, which meant that everyone was "equal", made the same amount of money etc. What this leads into is that since nobody can't get rich, so why bother trying harder? This means that entrepreneurship and inventions suffer massively. But then again, for example when the railways in the UK were switched to private ownership instead of goverment ownership, atleast for the first few years (I don't know the current situation) the level of service suffered massively.
right Paladin... well babies aren't overeating or smoking, and neither was i when i got a tumor that nearly killed me. it wasn't charity that saved my life, but pure luck that my case was interesting enough that a teaching hospital thought i would be a good case study for it's students. i agree that some illnesses, and the help provided for them, need to be graded... and smoking related problems in particular should be less well covered, unless they are second-hand smoke problems of children that had no choice about their environment. but you really agree 100%? give me a break.... did i deserve to die because i couldn't afford the treatment?? should have had to have been expected to hope and wait for charity??
nonsense, through and through.
nonsense, through and through.
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
All anyone wants from their country is a good, nice place to live. It doesn't come for free, you have to pay into the collective pot in order to get that.
Far too many people live hand to mouth can't afford to pay for anything except their daily costs to stay under cover and with food. To expect people like that to pay for their own healthcare is disgusting. What sort of country is it that only provides basic amenities to those who can afford it? From the poorest person who's job only pays him or her enough to buy enough food and pay the rent to the successful businessman who can buy anything he or she wants, they all deserve the right to life
Far too many people live hand to mouth can't afford to pay for anything except their daily costs to stay under cover and with food. To expect people like that to pay for their own healthcare is disgusting. What sort of country is it that only provides basic amenities to those who can afford it? From the poorest person who's job only pays him or her enough to buy enough food and pay the rent to the successful businessman who can buy anything he or she wants, they all deserve the right to life
paladin shredder
Member
Its not nonsense "through and through" if you agree with me to an extent.
So your medical issue was resolved completely by the free will of other individuals? And your position is that we can't rely on the generosity of other people?
Perhaps I should more clearly state my position. I don't think paying extra taxes to our government for healthcare reasons will solve the problem. Why? Because we already pay taxes to have Medicaid, which has been around for over 40 years. Look at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
In the first paragraph, it mentions that it is SUPPOSED to take care of every type of individual you mentioned (babies, low income individuals/families) in your previous post. You were 34 when you got your tumor (according to wikipedia as well). If you were low income, couldn't you apply for Medicaid? If you tried but couldn't get anywhere, then why do you support the position of higher taxes (which is what this bill will do) for more government health care if Medicaid couldn't help your situation?
If you were not low income, shouldn't it have been your responsibility to get health insurance?
Don't get me wrong man, I don't think anyone deserves to die. I'm glad you are here today and would love to buy you a beer if we ever met in person. I can understand your position of wanting to fix health care because of your personal experience. However, i don't think more government run health care will fix the problem. The main reason being is that most of the money that is supposed to go towards fixing the problem will be wasted, which will put this nation further in debt.
So your medical issue was resolved completely by the free will of other individuals? And your position is that we can't rely on the generosity of other people?
Perhaps I should more clearly state my position. I don't think paying extra taxes to our government for healthcare reasons will solve the problem. Why? Because we already pay taxes to have Medicaid, which has been around for over 40 years. Look at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
In the first paragraph, it mentions that it is SUPPOSED to take care of every type of individual you mentioned (babies, low income individuals/families) in your previous post. You were 34 when you got your tumor (according to wikipedia as well). If you were low income, couldn't you apply for Medicaid? If you tried but couldn't get anywhere, then why do you support the position of higher taxes (which is what this bill will do) for more government health care if Medicaid couldn't help your situation?
If you were not low income, shouldn't it have been your responsibility to get health insurance?
Don't get me wrong man, I don't think anyone deserves to die. I'm glad you are here today and would love to buy you a beer if we ever met in person. I can understand your position of wanting to fix health care because of your personal experience. However, i don't think more government run health care will fix the problem. The main reason being is that most of the money that is supposed to go towards fixing the problem will be wasted, which will put this nation further in debt.
i hope you don't really think that there's only one level of "low income", and that if you are in it you automatically qualify for medicaid and if you aren't you can afford good health coverage. that would be intensely simple-minded of you if you do... and anyone that wants to buy me a beer gets the benefit of the doubt from me on that one, 
i was a musician.. i was low income... and no, i didn't qualify for medicaid, and no, i couldn't afford health insurance. i managed to pay for my loft, keep my electric on, my car on the road, and food on my table, and it was a struggle. there was nothing left for health coverage.
and i think i clearly made the point that it wasn't charity that got me my surgery... the bill is still there. no, a neurosurgeon, who taught student surgeons at the hospital i ended up getting treated at found my case interesting and so they waived the need for me to prove i had means to pay up front.... and i had to sign a waiver saying i understood that i might very well die and that my "estate" would have no recourse against them. they got what they wanted... a subject for a course. i'm sure there was compassion involved, but it was hardly the deciding factor... they got something out of it beyond money. hardly a charitable endeavor by the best definition of the term; an enterprise undertaken for the sole benefit of others, and with purely altruistic intent and no promise or expectation of repayment. and i don't think i really need to say this, because it should be implicit in what i've already said: very, very few others in similar situations to what i found myself in can hope to have the same thing happen for them... it's NOT something that can be counted on... so i wouldn't call it a "health plan", and i certainly wouldn't want to bet my family's future health on it.
i was a musician.. i was low income... and no, i didn't qualify for medicaid, and no, i couldn't afford health insurance. i managed to pay for my loft, keep my electric on, my car on the road, and food on my table, and it was a struggle. there was nothing left for health coverage.
and i think i clearly made the point that it wasn't charity that got me my surgery... the bill is still there. no, a neurosurgeon, who taught student surgeons at the hospital i ended up getting treated at found my case interesting and so they waived the need for me to prove i had means to pay up front.... and i had to sign a waiver saying i understood that i might very well die and that my "estate" would have no recourse against them. they got what they wanted... a subject for a course. i'm sure there was compassion involved, but it was hardly the deciding factor... they got something out of it beyond money. hardly a charitable endeavor by the best definition of the term; an enterprise undertaken for the sole benefit of others, and with purely altruistic intent and no promise or expectation of repayment. and i don't think i really need to say this, because it should be implicit in what i've already said: very, very few others in similar situations to what i found myself in can hope to have the same thing happen for them... it's NOT something that can be counted on... so i wouldn't call it a "health plan", and i certainly wouldn't want to bet my family's future health on it.
paladin shredder
Member
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. 
Obviously the income of the individual v.s. the health issue they are dealing with create quite a few variables that determine if you are applicable. I was simply trying to boil it down to,"you either get medicaid, or you don't."
I now better understand you situation that, basically, if you died in operation they couldn't be held liable. I agree that I wouldn't consider that charity work, nor would I rely on chances like that as my default health care plan.
However, there is still the matter that we as citizens are already paying taxes for government health care, both Medicare and Medicaid. Roughly 2 trillion dollars was spent in 2007 on government health care, nearly half of the entire budget, yet how many people are really getting covered? Only 27%! How can our government be spending more than any other nation on health care, yet we seem to benefit so little from it? No one disputes that private insurance companies are basically robbing the people of their money with their "health coverage," and driving the prices up, but you have to see that government is doing this as well. At least with private insurance companies, it's somewhat possible to change plans depending on your situation.
You get the government to stop making laws that fix the prices of medical procedures and doctors wages, laws that were most likely put in place because of drug/insurance lobbyists influence in congress, and take government out of the picture. Private health insurance was not always like it is today. Let the free market control the prices and you have now created competition, which drives the price down and makes it more affordable for everyone. This will also reduce taxation, making private health insurance even more affordable as well.
I'll admit, this is not something that should just happen immediately, we need a transition period where government health care is still available. But in my opinion, I think this would be the best solution.
Obviously the income of the individual v.s. the health issue they are dealing with create quite a few variables that determine if you are applicable. I was simply trying to boil it down to,"you either get medicaid, or you don't." I now better understand you situation that, basically, if you died in operation they couldn't be held liable. I agree that I wouldn't consider that charity work, nor would I rely on chances like that as my default health care plan.
However, there is still the matter that we as citizens are already paying taxes for government health care, both Medicare and Medicaid. Roughly 2 trillion dollars was spent in 2007 on government health care, nearly half of the entire budget, yet how many people are really getting covered? Only 27%! How can our government be spending more than any other nation on health care, yet we seem to benefit so little from it? No one disputes that private insurance companies are basically robbing the people of their money with their "health coverage," and driving the prices up, but you have to see that government is doing this as well. At least with private insurance companies, it's somewhat possible to change plans depending on your situation.
You get the government to stop making laws that fix the prices of medical procedures and doctors wages, laws that were most likely put in place because of drug/insurance lobbyists influence in congress, and take government out of the picture. Private health insurance was not always like it is today. Let the free market control the prices and you have now created competition, which drives the price down and makes it more affordable for everyone. This will also reduce taxation, making private health insurance even more affordable as well.
I'll admit, this is not something that should just happen immediately, we need a transition period where government health care is still available. But in my opinion, I think this would be the best solution.
Felix Neumann
Member
I absolutely agree with the words of SocialNumb. I love the national understanding here at the sneap forum. Though NOBODY should be ashamed of his nationality. Each one should know, where he comes from and not deny it. Blind patriotism/ blind following leads to absolute bullshit (ask my Grandpa). National togetherness can be a very good, warm and safe feeling, but it could lead to a dangerous momentum quickly. I see myself as a world citizen and I´m looking forward to meet some of you sneapsters all around the world. We all bleed red and speak the same language. FUCKING METAL!
Joematthews
Member
- Dec 15, 2007
- 1,547
- 0
- 36
Felix Neumann
Member
Meet Felix
Joe
Hahahahaha fuck
This could have lead to misunderstanding in a pretty cannibalistic way. For my defense..I didn´t had any coffee yet nah, that's not what he meant, lol... in English/American slang, to "meat" someone... well, a girl... is to, you know... stuff.Hahahahaha fuck
Felix Neumann
Member
nah, that's not what he meant, lol... in English/American slang, to "meat" someone... well, a girl... is to, you know... stuff.
Haha shit, that doesn´t make my mistake better
Basically, you know how I mee..uh meant it! 
Mago
Austrian Blech Machine
if health care is in public hand, aren't the insurance companies screwed then?
not that I fell pitty for some people who make profit of others people diseases, but i can't imagine how this should work? isnt there a lot of money lost, i mean those companies also pay taxes I believe....
so if people do not need them because its not private anymore....i guess the health care taxes will really go through the roof then...
just to clearify if i understood that right:
is it like here in austria then - you work, you pay health care taxes ("social insurace taxes"), youre not screwed if you get ill.
you're not working - get a private insurace, or ur screwed cause you have to pay every doctor urself.
not that I fell pitty for some people who make profit of others people diseases, but i can't imagine how this should work? isnt there a lot of money lost, i mean those companies also pay taxes I believe....
so if people do not need them because its not private anymore....i guess the health care taxes will really go through the roof then...
just to clearify if i understood that right:
is it like here in austria then - you work, you pay health care taxes ("social insurace taxes"), youre not screwed if you get ill.
you're not working - get a private insurace, or ur screwed cause you have to pay every doctor urself.
Uladyne
Greg
Is it bad that I get most of my info on current events from the Sneap Forum? Damn I need to get outside more often.
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
By the correct logic, a hungry person shouldn't have to go hungry in the richest nation on earth. Isn't there enough for everyone?
IMO, health care is too important to be left to the corporations. History has shown that profitability has taken precedence over people. That's not a good thing when your business is taking care of people. Some things are more important than the bottom line.
Up here in Canada, yeah, we pay a bit more in taxes, but we've still got it good. And nobody is turned away from a hospital. Ever.
BTW, whoever mentioned the #1 health problem in the US being obesity: That's probably due to the fact that the food is so shitty.
Do you really think that people get turned away from hospitals in the US?
And does anyone really think that only 27% of people are insured in the US?
Get the facts straight first people. There is no real conversation when spewing garbage like this. (edit: Not directed at glenn) Most of this thread is blind leading the blind, and if you can actually see, then you are clearly a wrong and stupid conservative fear-monger.
Similar threads
