ScottKuma

Not going to offend me... but I might point out: one of the problems is that I AM paying for the insurance...and I'm still being put between that proverbial rock & a hard place! (Please excuse me if this continuing real world example of the short-comings of private insurance is out of place.)

The irony of the situation is that if I weren't paying for the insurance, and if I weren't working - or even if I were working minimum wage - my son's care would be fully covered on the public's dime. Not only that, but he would be getting a higher level of care than he is currently receiving under the private plan. (I'm hearing that less-severe cases routinely receive 15 - 16 hours of nursing a day, compared with the 8 hours a day that he currently receives.)

What really cheeses me off is that the private plan is essentially waiting for the government to start picking up the bill, so that my son no longer skews their actuary tables.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

aceventura3

After thinking about the above statement, the fundemental difference between my view of the world as compared to my soscially liberal freinds becomes clear.

Wealth can be defined in nature in different ways, for example in a pack of wolves - stronger, faster, smarter, more aggressives wolves (wealthier) rise to lead the pack. I see this as a fact of nature. I see this as social order. I do not see it as a problem. In fact I see it as effiecient. It is up to the stronger, faster, smarter, more aggressive to make sure the rest are taken care of. I think refusal to accept this order of nature leads to chaos and to the detriment of everyone.

So, you are correct in your observation. When you say there is no where to go with this way of thinking - it is also correct because it is like saying there needs to be a change in the way we look at gravity. There needs to be a reason to take us to a different level of thought. I have not seen one. If I have missed it, please let me know.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

But your thread here blatantly ignores those unable to take care of themselves. You've said nothing that even acknowledges the existence of those unable to afford health insurance. You've attempted to pin the "insurance crisis" on teenagers who would rather buy new rims than pay an insurance premium. As far as I can tell, your interest in "taking care of the rest" is nothing but lip service.

BigBen

You obviously have wolves on the brain...

No, I do not accept the "Wealth is like the natural abilities of a wolf..." argument.

Not to get into the "What is wealth" or "What is value" arguments of classical, neo-classical, marxist and keynsian economists, the wealth that you speak of is not wealth. Ability does not equal wealth.

Some economists say that certain birds can acquire wealth, through the building and maintenance of their ornate nests; I still think the argument is a poor one.

Strength, speed, intelligence, and agression have nothing to do with wealth.

I agree that the wealthy members of society have a moral obligation to provide support to those less fortunate. Nothing can change that belief. I think that it comes down to my belief in a perfect society:

Create a society where you define all roles and responsibilities and all allocations of wealth and privledge before any one person is assigned to a position. You must assume that you have the same chance of being Bill Gates the billionaire or John Doe the homeless guy.
You would see a dramatic increase in social spending, if people had the risk of changing places with those who they decry as loafers and beggars. That is the society in which I want to live.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

aceventura3

Re-read my posts because what you state is not correct. I think we have an obilgation to care for the young, the old, and the mentally disabled. I also think healthcare can be made more affordable if everyone actively participated. In our current system "we" take a very passive approach to heath insurance. Ironically, we take auto insurance more important than health insurance. The basis of my OP is to understand why. I don't understand and I still don't.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

BigBen

I really thought that I had cleared things up a bit;

Ace, please don't worry. There are people that are smarter than me working on it. American healthcare is like a duck in the water. On the surface, everything is calm and serene. It seems that the duck magically floats from place to place.

Then you see under the surface, and see those little duck feet paddling like mad...

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

aceventura3

What does it take to aquire "wealth"? It is either luck or ability. I think luck is insignificant, so I see a clear connection between ability and wealth.

So, you have bees on your mind. The above is exaclty the way a bee hive operates. You are correct "social spending" is at its maximum. However, individuality is at its minimum. I would prefer to live in a pack of wolves.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

irateplatypus

that is a perfectly ludicrous idea.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

BigBen

Okay, they help ACQUIRE WEALTH, but they are NOT WEALTH, DEFINED.

Sheesh.

Bolding mine.

And here we are, discussing wealth and value.

edit: Calling my ideas ludicrous does nothing to contribute the free exchange of ideas. Please refrain from posts like that in the future.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Ustwo

How about hard work, vision, and goal setting?

Define less fortunate. If you are a lazy slug are you 'less fortunate'?


Life is not a lottery, we rise and fall based on our own merits. If you create a fantasy land like the above, what do you think would happen? Those with the skills and abilities and drive would figure out how to get where they wanted to be, and your lazy slug ceo would fail. The only way your society would make me a homeless guy is at gun point. Take away everything accademic of mine, I'd still find something to do to keep me off the streets.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

flstf

I think that most people require transportation in order to work and many especially the young do not think they will need a doctor anytime soon.

Those without many assets probably figure they are safe to do without insurance as well since their emergency care will be taken care of with little fear of a hospital collection agency taking much from them to pay the bills.

Those who have assets and are uninsured or under-insured though are very much at risk of losing everything if they get injured or seriously ill. As one poster in this thread pointed out even those with what they thought was good insurance can find themslves in financial trouble after a major illness or injury.

BigBen

Those are also ways of achieving success, but the term "Wealth" applies to an abundance of something, not just money.

You may create lots of money if you have a good work ethic. Some may even call you "Wealthy". I say that one does not need these magical skills you posess to be wealthy. You may be born into a privledged class and location.

In my opinion, yes. In my definition, I would leave out the terms 'lazy' and 'slug'. That's just me.



I think you and I are much closer than you originally propose; I am not talking communism here, but rather a set of rules that society follows that allows the rising and falling based on our merits. You do not want privledge to be passed on to the incompetent, do you? You don't want the meritous homeless child to be without any chance of improvement, do you?

I think I got this idea from Friedman, but any philosophy majors out there should correct me promptly. This is not a new concept, and I fear I am doing it a disservice by butchering the definition so badly. It is just this:

I want everyone to have the same chance, whether you are in a position of extreme wealth or poverty.

And I would beg to disagree about the whole lottery thing, Ustwo. I think you and I won the baby lottery, and are living in our repsective locations instead of Bangladesh, the Ivory Coast, Somalia, and 100 other countries. Do you catch what I'm throwing?

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

aceventura3

I get it on an individual level assuming many uninsured simply value other things higher than they do health insurance. However, I still don't understand the liberal point of view when it comes to healthcare insurance.

I live in the state of California, some consider it the most liberal state in the country. In my state, mandated by law, every worker is covered by workers compensation insurance, Except for The State Fund the system is done with private insurance companies providing the coverage. But there are children in the state without healthcare insurance. Why not mandate coverage for every child and have a safety net health insurer like the State Fund is for work comp.?

The city of San Francisco passes a law against gun ownership, clearly unconstitutional, and will end-up spending millions trying to either enforce this law or defend it in court, but won't spend a dime to make sure every child has health insurance in the city. Why?

PETA will spend millions on protecting endagered owls, but won't spend a dime on making sure children get proper healthcare. Why?

Barbara Striesand could do 4 performances a year, and raise enough money to insure every child in the state, but she doesn't. Instead she spends time complaining about Bush. Why?

Deadbeat dads will blow thousands on a few trips to Vegas every year, but won't buy heath insurance on their children, and are not forced to by law. Why?

You can not drive a car off of a dealer lot without proof of auto insurance, but you can take a baby home from the hospital without proof of insurance on the baby? Why? I could go on but hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.

Is insuring everyone important, or not? It clearly is not, so why pretend that it is? This is what I don't understand.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

stevo

I can answer this one. Because according to PETA humans are the enemy.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Ustwo

Ben I think the problem is, what you are advocating is as against human nature as communism. I have a son myself, 16 months, obnoxiously cute. I will see to it that he has EVERY advantage I can give him, I will work harder myself to do so, I will give him extra schooling if needed. He will not be spoiled, he will learn the value of hard work, and earning your own keep. This is what most parents want for their kids, trying to make it all equal would only work if we were all raised in a creche instead of families.

Why expand beyond your minium if you can't give it to your family when you die?

I see this in a lot of parents, not just wealthy ones. I know a waitresses who put her kids in private schools, its a prime motivator to give to our children. For every Paris 'spoiled rotten whore' Hilton there are tens of thousands of kids who enter the family bussiness or whatever and succeed on their own merit.

Life can NEVER be fair to everyone, its just not possible and when you try to make it fair it tends to make it far more funfair to a majority of the people than fairer to others. We already give out free educations, and have societies that allow upward mobility, something that is often lacking in those other countries you speak of. At some point you have to let people do their thing.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

irateplatypus

BigBen,

i accidentally hit the "post quick reply" button instead of the "go advanced" button. my interest was in the thread was already waining, just didn't have the motivation to go edit the darn thing. you were right to call me out, my apologies.

i think your heart is in the right place here (everyone should be given a fair shot at advancement in life), but you're going about it in all the wrong ways. what you're advocating are essentially marxist ideas that any student of human nature and/or history will tell you are misguided at best.

think of all the thread topics on this board... how many contain glowing praise for a major government program? and yet, some people think giving the same entity responsibility for our bodily health and well-being is a great idea.

the moral argument for national healthcare is even weaker. healthcare isn't a right. you have no "right" to go to the doctor. if a person's kid is sick... they have absolutely no right to take money from another person to pay the bills.

nationalized healthcare is essentially forcing one person to pay for another's responsibilities under threat of imprisonment.

can anyone make a serious case for justifying this? i'm not saying people shouldn't help one another out... but is it a proper function of goverment to force people to do it?

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

samcol

Great point.

I think that's a very legitamate question a person has to ask themselves. Would you be willing to put a gun to someone's head or throw them in prison to make them pay for your healthcare or the healthcare of a loved one. It sounds crazy, but that's essentially what you are doing by having government enforce a national healthcare policy or enforcing any policy for that matter.

For me, the answer is no. I cannot support a national healthcare program.

Another question, does anyone who supports a national healthcare program deny that you are basically forcing someone else to pay you by using the threat of imprisonment?

roachboy

interesting to read the moralizing commentary above, particularly given that, if you actually think about what is being said, it amounts to the usual conservative claptrap about poverty----you get the petit bourgeois mythos of the Heroic Individual which stages individual financial prosperity as a function of one's gumption level, glossed with tedious robert ardrey terminology---that amounts to the adventures of the Entrepreneur overdubbed with duran duran lyrics about being a predator--very sleek, very flattering, wholly arbitrary....

those not enjoying the same access to opportunity (a factor bracketed like everything else concerning the social system by the duran duran school) should get nothing because they deserve nothing (their situation being a function of moral failing)
they should not have access to basic medical care.
they should simply die.
or convert.
why?
because these sleek predator types dont like taxes.
that is all there is to the posts from ustwo and irate above: moralizing nonsense wrapped around a dislike of taxes.
the logic, such as it is, in their posts would apply equally to any and all taxes.
curious that they do not pitch the same kind of claims in conversations about defense spending.
but apparently it is ok to squander enormous sums on systems designed to kill with great mechanical efficiency--but keeping folk alive and/or enabling them to enjoy some minimal quality of life--that is a problem.
go figure.


measures that enabled universal access to health care (and note that no particular plan is being discussed here..this thread is about swatting at imaginary flies) would function to increase system stability over the longer term
(this longer term is obviously hard for the duran duran school to think about, since for them the universe revolves around each and every one, and there is no timeframe not as short as their attention span)
to see arguments for such a system of health care,you would have to be capable of thinking about capitalism as a system, of looking at the long-term history of actually existing capitalism and not flee into the reassuring world of econ 101 diagrams and neoliberal ideology so as to avoid that history--if you looked at this history of capitalist systems, you would see--is is obvious---that capitalism has and continues to function at cross purposes with its own requirements for social reproduction. universal health care would be among the measures that could be implemented in the interest of compensating for the consequences of capitalism (as a mode of production).

this would entail the view that the distribution of wealth and opportunity is a political function---nothing about the views from the right above would allow you to get to this space because everything about these views is geared toward depoliticizing economic activity.
so maybe we should take this depoliticization seriously.
not only do i fail to see the analytic value of conservative economic ideology, so also i do not understand why conservative posts about economic activities are proper to a politics thread--perhaps another forum on rightwing fairy tales would suit them better.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

kutulu

The existance of a state run police force is essentially forcing one person to pay for another's responsibilities under threat of imprisonment. Really, why should rich people pay for the police protection for poor people?

kutulu

My point is that we already have numerous systems that operate and provide services without your taxpaying ability effecting your reciept of those services. Whether or not you pay taxes, your roads are maintained, is having usable roads a right defined in the constitution? How about education, are you willing to cut off education from families that aren't able to pay for it? What kind of a country do you want to live in?

BigBen

Funny you should mention that;

Is there such a thing as "Gated Communities" down in the states? Let us ask for a moment what that is...

Rich people subsidizing their police protection with private providers. These guards keep out the riff-raff, and the rich people get to feel safer than the general public.

Instead of spending the money for better policing in general, the rich folks want tax cuts so that they can spend their social dollars to benefit them specifically! Rise up, my fellow poor, and refuse to allow this anymore!

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

kutulu

Gated communities are so lame. I think they are just another false sense of security. What's really funny is when a community has a gate and then there are a few really nice houses guarded by a second gate.

aceventura3

Do you like taxes?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

BigBen

I love taxes.

Sounds weird, doesn't it?

I can look at the situation reasonably. I would much rather have taxes than have the government go into deficit spending. That pushes the tax burden (with interest) onto the next generation, or the next...

I can see what my taxes give me. I take very little for granted. I feel privleged to be able to contribute to the well-being of others. Does that make me weird?

Why do you feel that taxes are bad? You don't want to pay to help others?

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

stevo

I don't want to be forced to pay to help others...

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

samcol

Saying you love taxes is pretty weird considering the current tax system is basically a huge pyramid scheme. You want to pay more money to the top of the pyramid while currently very little of that money ever makes it back down to the working class anyhow. Our corrupt leaders just loot it. I'd say it's foolish to want more taxes with the idea that it's going to help out people who need it.

Of course taxes really don't have that much to do with deficit spending. We have a group in power who has no regard for your money or using it wisely, and you want to give them more. Do you really think that if they increased taxes another 20-30% they wouldn't just spend over that amount too? Moreover would they spend it to 'help others' like you say, or would that money just go into the general slush fund to spend however they like as with social security currently.

roachboy

whether i personally enjoy taxes or not is irrelevant, ace---unless you imagine that one's affection or lack thereof of taxes constitutes an analytic postion on their function. try to make the argument that your emotional response to taxation allows you to say anything about their function socially...lay it out. i dont think you can do it coherently. but let's see

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

As taxes would relate to this thread, taxation is not needed. People have the opportunity to voluntarily purchase health insurance. Given a choice I would rather retain the choice than to have a healthcare insurance system funded through taxation. Some government services are not condusive to individual choice, like national defense. So I think taxation is the best way to fund national defense. I would also prefer a system where those who are not able to purchase health insurance, i.e. children of irresponsible parents, have it provided through local taxation, as close to the source as possible. If handled on a more local level there can be increased accountability.

I hate giving others control over my money. It seems the liberal assumption is that if people control their own money they won't help the needy. This assumption is wrong. You saying you like taxes is important because it is like you are saying that if not through taxation that you would not do the right thing in terms of helping others. I hope I misunderstand your point. Why do you trust "government" to do what is right more than you would trust yourself?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

SERPENT7

While not the MOST elitist thing I've ever seen posted here, this comes pretty close.
First, lets talk about the bus versus a car.
In order to get into downtown LA from the 'burbs it takes 4.5 hours, and 3 transfers. (Thats 9 hours in transit, BTW.)
Live near your work, you say.
No. (I hate crime.)
For most americans a car is directly related to your ability to find a good job. If you think i'm kidding, try being late to your job 3 times a week because the buses don't run as predicted. (ALL temp agencies ask if you have RELIABLE PERSONAL transportation. No car, no job.)
Second, some of us don't work 4 hours @ $7 because we have kids that need our time and attention.
I am middle-class, and cannot afford unsubsidised health care.

Consider also that the uninsured rate for any proceedure is often twice the rate hospitals charge insurance companies. So the people that are least likely to be able to afford it are charged higher prices. How fair is that? (Not that anyone said life was supposed to be fair, but still...)

"The irony of the situation is that if I weren't paying for the insurance, and if I weren't working - or even if I were working minimum wage - my son's care would be fully covered on the public's dime. Not only that, but he would be getting a higher level of care than he is currently receiving under the private plan. (I'm hearing that less-severe cases routinely receive 15 - 16 hours of nursing a day, compared with the 8 hours a day that he currently receives.)"-ScottKuma

I was in exactly the same spot when my son got diagnosed with craniosinostosis. I had to get denied Healthy Families, (Middle class-ish sub'd ins.) then apply for medical. (They would cover the proceedure but were going to charge us more than if we just paid it all out of pocket!) So we then had to take all of our paperwork and re-apply to healthy families. (approved!)

"those not enjoying the same access to opportunity"-roachboy
This is the reason i called marvin elitist. It is also why i think Us2 is a little deluded. He talks about hard work, and merit, but (as far as i can tell) does not recognize the fact that it is his birth, quality of education, his whiteness, his gender, and his general health, (IE, His Socio-Economic Status) that has made it possible for him to have something to hand down.

Also, being in favor of taxes does not mean that i trust the government to spend my money more responsibly than I myself would. I simply trust the government to spend your money more responsibly than you would.

stevo

you're right, its not the most elitest thing. This is...

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Ustwo

I used to believe in Santa Claus.

Give it time, you will grow out of this.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Bill O'Rights

Wow. Just...wow.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

flstf

It seems like you trust the government to tax us to pay for things that many do not believe in like national defense, R&D, highway construction, bridges to nowhere, education, etc... What an original concept.

Nimetic

I'm glad it helps. It's an interesting area actually.

Ok re specialists. Look I've not used them much... so I'm unclear on this.

Generally, we have to see a GP first if we want any rebate etc. The GP gives us a referral letter then we head off to see the specialist.

At that point I think that we can go private or public. The GP will probably have asked also whether it's a work injury or transport injury. The former is covered by a seperate (employer funded) scheme, while the latter is covered by our annual car registrations.

In the one case that I can remember, I had a suspected ganglion in the wrist. I was probably about $40 out of pocket (after medicare reimbursement) for two visits to the sports medicine oriented GP.

I had Xrays, free through medicare but carried out at the private sports-med facility. I also opted to have an MRI, which wasn't covered (private or public schemes) in this case. Cost about $100.

Then I visited a specialist surgeon, in an exclusive clinic, who charged me about $100 for a short visit. About 5min only. He advised against surgery actually, at this time. Not worth it apparently. I recovered some of this fee but I'm not sure the percentage. All prices are in AU dollars.

I just did a check. Here's a quote...

My interpretation is that the medicare schedule... is the government decreed fee. My guess is that the AMA sets a higher standard fee. Insurers however have agreements with some hospitals though... if you go to these designated centres on specific schemes then my understanding is that you are gauranteed no out-of-pocket expense. This effectively promotes both the insurer and the hospital I guess - the doc probably gets less than usual and the scheme probably pays more than usual.

This is all just outpatient stuff. Hospital procedures are still free in the public system (as best I know) - but there are waiting lists, depending. Waiting lists for "elective" surgery (which I understand to mean things like hip replacements etc) are one of the key measurement criteria for the hospitals and are usually discussed come election time.

As I said though... message me if you really want to know more. It's probably much easier for me to find out these things. Both medibank and medicare have shopfronts nearby that I can visit for example.

Links, if you are interested
www.phaa.net.au/links.html (from AMA Victoria)
www.medicare.gov.au
www.medibank.com.au

Marvelous Marv

Others have already covered the "trusting the government" section, so I'll leave that one twisting in the wind.

Would you like to know what's quite a bit more elitist than my post? YOURS!!

Unlike literally millions of illegals who come here with basically the shirts on their backs, you're too good to live where they do. You're too good to work at the jobs they do. You're too good to ride the bus like they do. Your kids are more important than their kids are to them. Why is that? Are you better than they because you were born here?

And, because of the above, many of them are likelier to be happier, and more successful, than you. I've seen illegal Mexican and Filipino immigrants carve out quite nice lives for themselves, but none that I have observed did it by complaining, or "trusting the government" to take care of them.

And by the way, I specifically excluded kids with health problems in my post. I guess you missed that.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher