The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,305
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
This must be a Narf joke. The Republicans have had 7+ years to come up with an alternative to the ACA, but seem to be pulling out of their ass, and you expect the Trump administration to solve a problem with a plan that was never really planned out in the first place.
True, but then nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated either.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
How about we "ban" the "immigration" of US servicemen to middle eastern countries? I think you'd fix many problems with that.
That's more of a work visa.

- - - Updated - - -

True, but then nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated either.
It seems pretty simple in your country, pay some taxes, get some healthcare, live a healthy life. What's complicated?
 

93Flareside

Döner Kebab enthusiast
DONOR
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
17,796
Location
42 miles outside of Chicago
Car(s)
‘18 VW Golf GTI, '87 Mercury Colony Park
The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

Duh gubment. Problem is, I think in this country, it's believed that if we had national healthcare, it would be done for the lowest cost which in some people's minds is bad and it might be. But, who knows, could be for the better...
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
20,335
Location
Michigan USA
It seems to work in every other country that has it. There may be problems, but it is better than what we currently have.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Anything can work great, if you throw enough money at it.

I don't mind the idea of socialized healthcare, but I have little tolerance for the idea that we can have it without substantial tax increases across the board. None of this "only tax the 2%" bullshit.

The ACA was designed to fail and put the American people through so much misery that they'll welcome socialized healthcare with open arms. The complete failure of the Republicans to repeal the ACA, like they spent years promising, has sealed the deal. Socialized healthcare is inevitable.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Anything can work great, if you throw enough money at it.

I don't mind the idea of socialized healthcare, but I have little tolerance for the idea that we can have it without substantial tax increases across the board. None of this "only tax the 2%" bullshit.

The ACA was designed to fail and put the American people through so much misery that they'll welcome socialized healthcare with open arms. The complete failure of the Republicans to repeal the ACA, like they spent years promising, has sealed the deal. Socialized healthcare is inevitable.
Those tax increases need not be as massive as you think, of course that hinges on streamlining the government, which of course wouldn't happen. Fun fact my friend and I discovered, he used to work in Germany and for the hell of it we calculated our effective tax rates in NY vs Germany, came out to the same percentage....

The real issues with socialized healthcare in this specific country is that our government is quite inefficient by design, state governments can do things that go at odds with feds (marijuana laws, abortion laws, sanctuary cities), they also introduce an extra layer of government that pretty much no other country has. Again this was very much by design of the founding fathers, it's to prevent either one of those governments from becoming tyrannical.
The other problem with single payer is that there is a pretty big insurance industry that employees hundreds of thousands of people and is a pretty large chunk of the economy. The ACA wasn't designed to fail and bring about single payer, the ACA was designed as a huge handout to private insurance companies.
 
Last edited:

NecroJoe

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
19,345
Location
San Francisco area, CA, USA
Car(s)
2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
I feel like there's a middle ground. A baseline of minimal coverage that is government/tax subsidized. I think it's a moral thing to do, and it still leaves the door open for anyone to still have an employer plan or "golden" private plan, with a smaller "hit" to everyone else.

But what I'm not willing to compromise on: no lifetime benefit limits and no pre-existing condition limits.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I feel like there's a middle ground. A baseline of minimal coverage that is government/tax subsidized. I think it's a moral thing to do, and it still leaves the door open for anyone to still have an employer plan or "golden" private plan, with a smaller "hit" to everyone else.

But what I'm not willing to compromise on: no lifetime benefit limits and no pre-existing condition limits.
That's been suggested, expanding medicaid and leaving current system in place, +1 on the last sentence.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Those tax increases need not be as massive as you think, of course that hinges on streamlining the government, which of course wouldn't happen. Fun fact my friend and I discovered, he used to work in Germany and for the hell of it we calculated our effective tax rates in NY vs Germany, came out to the same percentage....
Yep, it could work out that way, but only if our government could get their act together. Cut spending elsewhere and focus on the important things. But they won't of course, just look at the reactions people have when Trump tries to cut spending. You'd think the sky is falling. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when single payer gets pushed through, taxes will increase across the board, not just for those dirty evil rich capitalists.

The other problem with single payer is that there is a pretty big insurance industry that employees hundreds of thousands of people and is a pretty large chunk of the economy. The ACA wasn't designed to fail and bring about single payer, the ACA was designed as a huge handout to private insurance companies.
I think the insurance companies knew what was going to happen with the ACA. They knew it wasn't going to work, so they cashed in while they could and then dropped out. Everything the naysayers were saying about the ACA being a disaster has come true, and they predicted it would usher in single payer from the start. It all seems to be going to plan.

The thing that bugs me on a personal level about socialized health care is this idea that it's your body, you can do whatever you want with it. But everyone else gets stuck with the bill. If other people have to pay, then they should get a say. It always seemed immature to think you could do whatever you want, but hold other people responsible for your actions. Americans are already pretty bad at living healthy lifestyles, I can't imagine Free? healthcare helping that situation.
 

rickhamilton620

has a fetish for terrible cars
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
16,796
Location
Yoe, PA
Car(s)
2012 Kia Forte EX
Yep, it could work out that way, but only if our government could get their act together. Cut spending elsewhere and focus on the important things. But they won't of course, just look at the reactions people have when Trump tries to cut spending. You'd think the sky is falling. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when single payer gets pushed through, taxes will increase across the board, not just for those dirty evil rich capitalists.


I think the insurance companies knew what was going to happen with the ACA. They knew it wasn't going to work, so they cashed in while they could and then dropped out. Everything the naysayers were saying about the ACA being a disaster has come true, and they predicted it would usher in single payer from the start. It all seems to be going to plan.

The thing that bugs me on a personal level about socialized health care is this idea that it's your body, you can do whatever you want with it. But everyone else gets stuck with the bill. If other people have to pay, then they should get a say. It always seemed immature to think you could do whatever you want, but hold other people responsible for your actions. Americans are already pretty bad at living healthy lifestyles, I can't imagine Free healthcare helping that situation.
Everyone else (in the immediate area anyway) gets stuck with the bill with all of those "free" ER visits that go unpaid because the person is un/underinsured. So it's a bit of a wash IMO.

If we all have to pay a bit more but are guaranteed a (actually high quality - not the flimsy skinflint super catastrophic plans that the GOP pushes that barely cover a fucking bandaid) level of care that ensures that one can be healthy and am not saddled with a ass load of debt like before the ACA, I'm all for it.

We all contribute through taxes, we all benefit, both directly (for those who are unable to get employer provided plans) and indirectly (us with employer provided care know that if the unthinkable should happen - job loss - we will be fine).

Plus, as far as quality goes, Medicaid recipients report high satisfaction with their plans and doctors according to various studies. So customer sat doesn't necessarily have to take a hit.

What makes healthcare different from other infrastructure initiatives besides the personal responsibility angle?


I get it, you worked hard for yourself, why should you have to contribute anything to Joe Blow over there, he should work as hard as you!

But sometimes, IMO, being an American also means looking out for each other for the greater good. Joe Blow could be working just as hard as you but struggling all the same.

I admittedly struggle with how conservatives seemingly constantly think about what others are doing with the money they pay in taxes/perceived waste?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass and maybe I'm just dumb but I am content with paying any taxes due, I just pay and figure if it helps someone out then good.

The ACA isn't perfect and is a compromised bill due to having to have concessions so it could barely be passed.

But the old system was far worse and left too many people vulnerable. Sure there's charity safety nets which many argue negates the need for socialized healthcare but the standards of care can vary widely, there's often barriers to entry like the (usually religious) charities right to decide who is worthy of care, etc.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
I get it, you worked hard for yourself, why should you have to contribute anything to Joe Blow over there, he should work as hard as you!

But sometimes, IMO, being an American also means looking out for each other for the greater good. Joe Blow could be working just as hard as you but struggling all the same.

I admittedly struggle with how conservatives seemingly constantly think about what others are doing with the money they pay in taxes/perceived waste?
It's not just about hard work, but about personal responsibility to make smart choices, like staying healthy. It's the difference between treating people like responsible adults with culpability, and treating people like brainless sheep that need to be herded. I would prefer to live in a world where your fate is in your hands, rather than hoping and praying that the government makes the right decisions so we all don't suffer for a single mistake, you know?

It's like social security. I've been told since I was around 10 or 12 that I shouldn't ever believe that social security will be there for me when I retire. That it will collapse long before I'm old enough to collect a dime of it. I didn't really believe that at first, but the older I get and the more I hear it, the more I start to believe it. Unfortunately I have to continue paying into social security, which makes it that much harder for me to save up for my own retirement. I would have been better off if there was never a retirement social safety net in the first place. Unless of course someone fixes social security, but since all our politicians are cowards that won't touch it with a 10 foot pole... a lot of people are probably going to suffer for it in their old age. A lesson in not putting all your eggs in one basket.

We like to believe we live in some sort of democracy, where we get a say in how things are done. Sometimes that seems naive, given how much people oppose letting other people live their own lives and make their own decisions. You can't trust them to do "the right thing", so you need to make sure the government is there to use force to prevent anyone from making "the wrong" choices. I would rather they stay out of people's lives, unless they're doing something that violates the rights of others.

I also believe that human nature dictates many things. Like the idea of "easy come, easy go". When people have to save up for something, they tend to cherish it more than if it was simply handed to them for free. It's why I have zero faith in "spreading democracy". There is also the idea of how human beings need incentives to do certain things. Dangerous/difficult jobs nobody tends to want usually pay more, for example. There has to be an incentive system. That's why we are seeing a shortage of medical doctors, since that entire field is looking less and less appealing to aspiring medical students. They would rather go into fields like cosmetic surgery, where they could make a decent living after so many grueling years of study and debt. Expecting people to do "the right thing" out of pure selflessness is unrealistic. It's just like the question of relying on charities, rather than social safety nets. The only question is whether to encourage people in a positive way, with incentives, or to be authoritarian and threaten people into compliance.

I honestly worry that this idealistic direction will be the end of our time as a superpower, to be as melodramatic as possible. Every empire falls eventually. We have been doing a damn good job at trying to bankrupt ourselves so far...
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
It's not just about hard work, but about personal responsibility to make smart choices, like staying healthy. It's the difference between treating people like responsible adults with culpability, and treating people like brainless sheep that need to be herded. I would prefer to live in a world where your fate is in your hands, rather than hoping and praying that the government makes the right decisions so we all don't suffer for a single mistake, you know?

It's like social security. I've been told since I was around 10 or 12 that I shouldn't ever believe that social security will be there for me when I retire. That it will collapse long before I'm old enough to collect a dime of it. I didn't really believe that at first, but the older I get and the more I hear it, the more I start to believe it. Unfortunately I have to continue paying into social security, which makes it that much harder for me to save up for my own retirement. I would have been better off if there was never a retirement social safety net in the first place. Unless of course someone fixes social security, but since all our politicians are cowards that won't touch it with a 10 foot pole... a lot of people are probably going to suffer for it in their old age. A lesson in not putting all your eggs in one basket.

We like to believe we live in some sort of democracy, where we get a say in how things are done. Sometimes that seems naive, given how much people oppose letting other people live their own lives and make their own decisions. You can't trust them to do "the right thing", so you need to make sure the government is there to use force to prevent anyone from making "the wrong" choices. I would rather they stay out of people's lives, unless they're doing something that violates the rights of others.

I also believe that human nature dictates many things. Like the idea of "easy come, easy go". When people have to save up for something, they tend to cherish it more than if it was simply handed to them for free. It's why I have zero faith in "spreading democracy". There is also the idea of how human beings need incentives to do certain things. Dangerous/difficult jobs nobody tends to want usually pay more, for example. There has to be an incentive system. That's why we are seeing a shortage of medical doctors, since that entire field is looking less and less appealing to aspiring medical students. They would rather go into fields like cosmetic surgery, where they could make a decent living after so many grueling years of study and debt. Expecting people to do "the right thing" out of pure selflessness is unrealistic. It's just like the question of relying on charities, rather than social safety nets. The only question is whether to encourage people in a positive way, with incentives, or to be authoritarian and threaten people into compliance.

I honestly worry that this idealistic direction will be the end of our time as a superpower, to be as melodramatic as possible. Every empire falls eventually. We have been doing a damn good job at trying to bankrupt ourselves so far...
There are a lot of things I would like to address in your post:
1) You keep using this phrase "make smart choices," as if some people just chose to get cancer or chose to be born with a hereditary or genetic disease. I'm sure there are examples of unhealthy lifestyles, but there are also those who had no say in the bad hand that life gave them.
2) You mention democracy, but in your description of how you would like to see people handle their own decisions and choices about life and healthcare, it actually seems to be closer to survival of the fittest. Democracy does give you freedom, but it also presupposes a social order in which everyone plays a role in. It's not isolationism.
3) I think I know what you mean with the last sentences, but I do want to push back a little bit. Why do you want us to be a "superpower"? Having power suggests that there is another side to the equation - the people you have power over (and hence your other term - empire). I would like to think that we can function as a society and as a country without having power over others AND without bankrupting ourselves. One does not depend on the other.
 

NecroJoe

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
19,345
Location
San Francisco area, CA, USA
Car(s)
2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
A former co-worker owned her own small business. Owned a small fitness studio and did private personal training. Their business was growing, and they had insurance through her husband's construction administration job. She got pregnant. A month later, his employer was purchased and he was let go because his positiin was redundant, so after 30 off 60 days, her lost his insurance. They bought a private insurance coverage plan, but her pregnancy was considered a pre-existing condition. Their baby was born MONTHS pre-mature. In total, it was $1.2 million, and insurance covered very little. She lost the fitness studio and their home (couldn't sell either before being evicted and foreclosed), and now live in a small apartment. Between the two them, they work 3 jobs (him, full- time, and she works two part- time jobs, one of them at the special needs school their son goes to for the tuition discount) and he drives Uber and Lyft. I know they are hurting badly.

I'm not sure how "smart choices" and "staying healthy" could be considered anything but offensive to a huge portion of folks who need reformed health insurance.
 
Last edited:

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
There are a lot of things I would like to address in your post:
1) You keep using this phrase "make smart choices," as if some people just chose to get cancer or chose to be born with a hereditary or genetic disease. I'm sure there are examples of unhealthy lifestyles, but there are also those who had no say in the bad hand that life gave them.
My sister was actually born with a physical disability that required many extreme surgeries when she was a child, as well as some in recent years. In fact, she was a March of Dimes poster child back in the 80's. Trust me, alright, nobody knows better than me, nobody. It was yuge. But seriously, I do know that sometimes it's absolutely none of your own doing. But I also think people assume that it's a large percentage of catastrophic health problems, when it's probably not. I know I'm a bit cynical, but I think the overwhelming majority are self inflicted. Just look at obesity. Not everyone has a genetic issue, but that excuse gets thrown around too often as a way of excusing bad lifestyle choices.

I often think the same thing when I see homeless people. I'm sympathetic, don't get me wrong, I choose to donate. But I have an impossible time believing that a person in America can just end up homeless on the street through sheer chance. It seems to me that you have to make a lot, and I do mean A LOT, of very stupid decisions in life to end up there. But people don't like to think that, because it's mean. They're rather believe it was just bad luck and couldn't be avoided or predicted.

2) You mention democracy, but in your description of how you would like to see people handle their own decisions and choices about life and healthcare, it actually seems to be closer to survival of the fittest. Democracy does give you freedom, but it also presupposes a social order in which everyone plays a role in. It's not isolationism.
True, but where do you draw the line? As close to communism as possible? We've had these sorts of discussions before regarding private charities verses tax funded social safety nets. I believe we should be there for each other, but there are different ways of doing it. Some good, some evil. I happen to believe that it can't be forced on people, because many people are like me, and will feel resentment at having no choice and push back. It's another part of human nature, you even see it from these Antifa morons who think it's evil that they are expected to get a job and contribute to society or else they'll starve. We need to know that we do these things by choice, not because we're being threatened if we don't comply. That's my take on it. I want to help others, but I want it to be my choice.

3) I think I know what you mean with the last sentences, but I do want to push back a little bit. Why do you want us to be a "superpower"? Having power suggests that there is another side to the equation - the people you have power over (and hence your other term - empire). I would like to think that we can function as a society and as a country without having power over others AND without bankrupting ourselves. One does not depend on the other.
There is an old saying, something about the bigger you are, the harder you fall. I do not mind America's power over the world receding a bit, what I'm worried about is a full scale collapse. And I don't see anyone doing anything to try and avoid that. I mean, just look at the USSR and how it fell. This is why I'm unabashedly conservative, despite negative stereotypes, because I would rather make safe smart decisions, not just as an individual but as a country. I would like to see more people play things safe, but I don't. People put themselves in debt, make bad decisions, don't take care of themselves, etc, and then demand that the government solve their problems. But I would prefer that your bad choices not impact others, same goes for our government. I don't like this "all our eggs in one basket" feeling...

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure how "smart choices" and "staying healthy" could be considered anything but offensive to a huge portion of folks who need reformed health insurance.
That clearly doesn't apply to your example. Those folks had the perfect storm of terrible luck, but again, to assume that the majority of cases are like the one you detailed is unrealistic. The bigger issue there is the legal details regarding when insurance companies are allowed to drop you and when they are not. I do not have a problem with reforming those legal rules at all.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
My sister was actually born with a physical disability that required many extreme surgeries when she was a child, as well as some in recent years. In fact, she was a March of Dimes poster child back in the 80's. Trust me, alright, nobody knows better than me, nobody. It was yuge. But seriously, I do know that sometimes it's absolutely none of your own doing. But I also think people assume that it's a large percentage of catastrophic health problems, when it's probably not. I know I'm a bit cynical, but I think the overwhelming majority are self inflicted. Just look at obesity. Not everyone has a genetic issue, but that excuse gets thrown around too often as a way of excusing bad lifestyle choices.
Obesity is actually often a function of income. Cheaper foods are generally more fattening, gym memberships cost money and take up time. I can give you a personal example, I was at 220lbs for years then decided to do something about it and dropped to about 170, then I had kids and suddenly didn't have the time or the energy to work out and keep a decent diet and I'm back to 220 again. Sure my particular circumstance is temporary as they get older I have some of my time back but imagine someone having to work multiple jobs?
I often think the same thing when I see homeless people. I'm sympathetic, don't get me wrong, I choose to donate. But I have an impossible time believing that a person in America can just end up homeless on the street through sheer chance. It seems to me that you have to make a lot, and I do mean A LOT, of very stupid decisions in life to end up there. But people don't like to think that, because it's mean. They're rather believe it was just bad luck and couldn't be avoided or predicted.
It is extremely easy to become homeless. There is a huge portion of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck and has no savings. There is also the fact that many homeless people have mental health issues that essentially prevent them from being contributing members of society but since de-institutionalization they have nowhere to go.

True, but where do you draw the line? As close to communism as possible? We've had these sorts of discussions before regarding private charities verses tax funded social safety nets. I believe we should be there for each other, but there are different ways of doing it. Some good, some evil. I happen to believe that it can't be forced on people, because many people are like me, and will feel resentment at having no choice and push back. It's another part of human nature, you even see it from these Antifa morons who think it's evil that they are expected to get a job and contribute to society or else they'll starve. We need to know that we do these things by choice, not because we're being threatened if we don't comply. That's my take on it. I want to help others, but I want it to be my choice.
This is where the basic tenets of utilitarianism goes into play, you look for a solution that provides the greatest good for the most people. I remember seeing estimates that it costs us more to have homeless people than it would to actually give them all free homes, it took into account the money spent on emergency care, LEO dealing with them, productivity loss, etc... While I generally agree with you on the idea of personal responsibility there is something to be said for social progress and benefit as well. This is actually one of the reasons public schools exist and are open to everyone, there is a real benefit to having an educated society.


There is an old saying, something about the bigger you are, the harder you fall. I do not mind America's power over the world receding a bit, what I'm worried about is a full scale collapse. And I don't see anyone doing anything to try and avoid that. I mean, just look at the USSR and how it fell. This is why I'm unabashedly conservative, despite negative stereotypes, because I would rather make safe smart decisions, not just as an individual but as a country. I would like to see more people play things safe, but I don't. People put themselves in debt, make bad decisions, don't take care of themselves, etc, and then demand that the government solve their problems. But I would prefer that your bad choices not impact others, same goes for our government. I don't like this "all our eggs in one basket" feeling...
To be fair USSR was always going to fail, socialism is simply an unsustainable economic model in the first place, to make it worse USSR was completely centrally planned with very little power given to local governments.


That clearly doesn't apply to your example. Those folks had the perfect storm of terrible luck, but again, to assume that the majority of cases are like the one you detailed is unrealistic. The bigger issue there is the legal details regarding when insurance companies are allowed to drop you and when they are not. I do not have a problem with reforming those legal rules at all.
You would have an exceedingly difficult time proving that w/e condition is not covered came about as a result of a specific lifestyle and bad choices. There are examples of people smoking a pack a day for 70 years and being perfectly healthy, and someone like my co-worker who's dick doesn't work well anymore because he been smoking for like 10 years (his only a couple of years older than me). Additionally as Rick rightly pointed out you are still paying for people's bad choices, if I break my arm from doing motorcycle stunts and I have no insurance the ER will still fix me up and you will be stuck with the bill if I refuse to pay. This is actually one of the reasons for extremely high hospital bills, they charge those who DO pay for those who DON'T. I used to be very opposed to single payer until I actually took a look at real hard statistics from Canada, barring a few horror stories it is a more efficient and cheaper system overall.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Obesity is actually often a function of income. Cheaper foods are generally more fattening, gym memberships cost money and take up time. I can give you a personal example, I was at 220lbs for years then decided to do something about it and dropped to about 170, then I had kids and suddenly didn't have the time or the energy to work out and keep a decent diet and I'm back to 220 again. Sure my particular circumstance is temporary as they get older I have some of my time back but imagine someone having to work multiple jobs?

It is extremely easy to become homeless. There is a huge portion of the population that lives paycheck to paycheck and has no savings. There is also the fact that many homeless people have mental health issues that essentially prevent them from being contributing members of society but since de-institutionalization they have nowhere to go.
But you're still making it out that these people have no personal agency over these things. Yes, cheaper food is more fattening. That doesn't excuse anyone from eating tons of it. You only need so many calories per day, but instead of holding people responsible for their decisions we try and muddy the water and place the blame somewhere else.

I know people who make more money than me, but are living paycheck to paycheck because they want to live the highest quality lifestyle possible, so they spend every penny they make. They don't put anything away for retirement or a rainy day, and when something bad happens they act like there was nothing they could have done to avoid it. Sometimes that might genuinely be true, but I would say most of the time it is not. According to the Brookings Institute there are 3 rules to avoid poverty. Graduate from highschool, get a job, and wait until you're at least 21 years old before getting married and having kids. They say only 2% of people who follow those rules have ended up in poverty, while 75% end up in the middle class.


This is where the basic tenets of utilitarianism goes into play, you look for a solution that provides the greatest good for the most people. I remember seeing estimates that it costs us more to have homeless people than it would to actually give them all free homes, it took into account the money spent on emergency care, LEO dealing with them, productivity loss, etc... While I generally agree with you on the idea of personal responsibility there is something to be said for social progress and benefit as well. This is actually one of the reasons public schools exist and are open to everyone, there is a real benefit to having an educated society.

Additionally as Rick rightly pointed out you are still paying for people's bad choices, if I break my arm from doing motorcycle stunts and I have no insurance the ER will still fix me up and you will be stuck with the bill if I refuse to pay. This is actually one of the reasons for extremely high hospital bills, they charge those who DO pay for those who DON'T. I used to be very opposed to single payer until I actually took a look at real hard statistics from Canada, barring a few horror stories it is a more efficient and cheaper system overall.
I get that and I absolutely support programs that benefit society. That's why I've mentioned that I'm not really against socialized health care. Especially compared to this nightmare we've been living with for years now.

But just to be argumentative... lol... I don't generally accept the argument that I can't be against a law because there is already another law that does the same thing. It is possible for me to be against both laws, since this is an argument about general principles and not specific legislation.

You would have an exceedingly difficult time proving that w/e condition is not covered came about as a result of a specific lifestyle and bad choices. There are examples of people smoking a pack a day for 70 years and being perfectly healthy, and someone like my co-worker who's dick doesn't work well anymore because he been smoking for like 10 years (his only a couple of years older than me).
The issue with preexisting conditions is that the entire business model that makes the Insurance Industry possible is the same business model used by gambling. A lot of people put a little bit of money in for a tiny chance at pulling a big amount of money out. In order for you to get anything out of it, many many others have to get screwed. Telling health insurance companies that they have to cover preexisting conditions is no different than telling gambling establishments that they have to accept bets after the results of the game are already known. It cannot possibly work. That's why the ACA had a mandate that forced everyone to buy health insurance, because such a business model would fail immediately without one. Even with the mandate it isn't working well.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
But you're still making it out that these people have no personal agency over these things. Yes, cheaper food is more fattening. That doesn't excuse anyone from eating tons of it. You only need so many calories per day, but instead of holding people responsible for their decisions we try and muddy the water and place the blame somewhere else.
Calorie content is just a part of the equation, nutritional content also makes a difference, one of the biggest drivers of obesity is HFCS that is found in just about every type of junk food. I am not saying that there is no personal responsibility involved but it is much easier to gain weight than you think.

I know people who make more money than me, but are living paycheck to paycheck because they want to live the highest quality lifestyle possible, so they spend every penny they make. They don't put anything away for retirement or a rainy day, and when something bad happens they act like there was nothing they could have done to avoid it. Sometimes that might genuinely be true, but I would say most of the time it is not. According to the Brookings Institute there are 3 rules to avoid poverty. Graduate from highschool, get a job, and wait until you're at least 21 years old before getting married and having kids. They say only 2% of people who follow those rules have ended up in poverty, while 75% end up in the middle class.
I listen to Ben Shapiro as well ;) However you are still making assumptions about people without really knowing all of the variables and circumstances. There is also the fact that some people might be homeless for a time and then manage to get out of it (I know at least one person IRL who did that).



I get that and I absolutely support programs that benefit society. That's why I've mentioned that I'm not really against socialized health care. Especially compared to this nightmare we've been living with for years now.

But just to be argumentative... lol... I don't generally accept the argument that I can't be against a law because there is already another law that does the same thing. It is possible for me to be against both laws, since this is an argument about general principles and not specific legislation.
That wasn't the thrust of my argument though, it was more to illustrate a point.


The issue with preexisting conditions is that the entire business model that makes the Insurance Industry possible is the same business model used by gambling. A lot of people put a little bit of money in for a tiny chance at pulling a big amount of money out. In order for you to get anything out of it, many many others have to get screwed. Telling health insurance companies that they have to cover preexisting conditions is no different than telling gambling establishments that they have to accept bets after the results of the game are already known. It cannot possibly work. That's why the ACA had a mandate that forced everyone to buy health insurance, because such a business model would fail immediately without one. Even with the mandate it isn't working well.
Right but the problem with specifically health insurance and not covering pre-existing conditions is that it can and does absolutely be a problem for many people. Your sister is one example, my youngest daughter needed surgery when she was born, fine now but if there is any potential issue that would be a pre-existing condition. The idea that all/most pre-existing conditions are results of bad decision making is not really viable. There are many medical conditions that are age related, however the age differs for different people, genetics is a huge part of it. I'm nearly bald and I have not done anything that would cause me to lose hair, yet I'm only a year older than you. My dad on the other hand has a full head of hair at 55...
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,979
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
But seriously, I do know that sometimes it's absolutely none of your own doing. But I also think people assume that it's a large percentage of catastrophic health problems, when it's probably not. I know I'm a bit cynical, but I think the overwhelming majority are self inflicted.
Just to add to the "sh*t happens group". I underwent major surgey four years ago; my condition has prevented me from working for two full years prior to that moment, severely limited my working capability for at least other 4 years before those two, and mildly limited it for at least other 5 years, plus it still prevents me from a series of job possibilities.

Had I been an american citizen, the surgery would have costed me roughly 160-180k dollars (I checked with the publicly available cost charts), which I didn't have at the time, plus more than 15 years in exams and doctors' paychecks. Without it, I'd probably be dead, and If I had to pay for it in the US, I'd probably be homeless by now.

With national healthcare, I had it for free in (but that part is just pure chance) one of the best hospital of the country for that kind of surgery. And now I am working and being productive.

It's not only a question of choices, not only a question of costs, but also of social opportunity costs.
 
Top