Health Care for Everyone

[Danoff]

Does anyone think this is a good idea? The universal health care concept that Clinton was running around yelling....

Are we really entitled to the productivity of doctors? If so, then why aren't we entitled to the productivity of plumbers, or musicians, or artists, or auto mechanics?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
...why aren't we entitled to the productivity of plumbers, or musicians, or artists, or auto mechanics?

A leaky pipe won't kill you.
Music soothes the soul but not an infected wound.
A painting will make you feel somthing, as long as you're conscious.
You can walk, if your legs work.

 

[DGB454]

I like it. Plus we should have universal auto insurance.

 

[1X83Z]

No. The way I understand universal health care, it will be more big government (which, in some cases, isn't a bad thing) and - worst of everything, ever - a system in which you cannot make an appointment with a private doctor, instead having it to do it universally, every time, with the 'system' doctors. This would be okay, but then if my foot begins giving me grief and I can't make a private doctor appointment ('equitable healthcare for all!'), I'll have to go into the emergency room late at night where they'll ask me if I'm drunk.

Plus, it's quasi-socialistic, which is one of the many, many reasons I'm against welfare.

 

[Danoff]

A leaky pipe won't kill you.
Music soothes the soul but not an infected wound.
A painting will make you feel somthing, as long as you're conscious.
You can walk, if your legs work.

You’d die without food, should that be universal?
You’d die without water, so plumbing, water treatment, and water usage should be part of your taxes.
It’s possible that you’d get killed because you didn’t have an alarm in your house.
You might get killed doing all kinds of things that could be taken over by the government to make sure that you don’t get hurt.

What’s wrong with you dying of some kind of natural causes because you can’t afford medical treatment? Maybe you’re dying of a rare disease that requires millions of dollars to possibly cure, if you can’t afford it, that’s it.

I don’t think that my existence gives me any right over anyone else’s time or money.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
You’d die without food, should that be universal?

In America, food essentially is universal. If you have no food you can get food stamps or go to a soup kitchen. People don't starve on the streets in America.

You’d die without water, so plumbing, water treatment, and water usage should be part of your taxes.

In many places it is.

It’s possible that you’d get killed because you didn’t have an alarm in your house.
You might get killed doing all kinds of things that could be taken over by the government to make sure that you don’t get hurt.

Medicine doesn't make sure you don't get hurt. It fixes you after you are hurt.

What’s wrong with you dying of some kind of natural causes because you can’t afford medical treatment? Maybe you’re dying of a rare disease that requires millions of dollars to possibly cure, if you can’t afford it, that’s it.

Okay. Maybe the hospital will hire you as the denial of service clerk so you can tell dying people and their loved ones that all day.

I don’t think that my existence gives me any right over anyone else’s time or money.

You're perspective here is self-centered. "Universal" health care requires a different opinion on the value of life.

Personally I'd just like to see decent affordable insurance. Government intervention is notoriously inept. Everybody knows that. But I'm not willing to stand there in front of a dying person and say, "You're disease is just to exotic and rare and expensive to treat. That's it."

It's a complicated problem. I can't and won't solve it. And my opinion on it changes from time to time. I want to be some kid of hard-ass and say, "too bad... you, and you, and you, will die because you're poor and it's your own damn fault." And it doesn't seem right. But I will say that comparing health care to plumbing and auto repair ridiculous.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile In America, food essentially is universal. If you have no food you can get food stamps or go to a soup kitchen.

But why should that be so?

You're perspective here is self-centered.

And I'm just fine with that. By the same token, I fully expect your perspective to be self-centered, too; just centered around your self, not mine. What a nice system.

"Universal" health care requires a different opinion on the value of life.

No, it requires a different opinion on the primacy of the Individual versus the primacy of the State. Danoff and I see the individual as supreme - each and every one of them. Others see the collective - call it "makind", call it "society", call it "the government", call it "life" - as supreme. Which, paradoxically, places no value whatsoever on the individual person. All are only seen by what they can give to others - others who are only valued by how much they need.

Personally I'd just like to see decent affordable insurance.

It exists. We've got it through our employers. The paperwork is a serious PITA, but the insurance itself is reasonably affordable - enough to be cost effective, anyway - and fairly comprehensive.

Government intervention is notoriously inept. Everybody knows that. But I'm not willing to stand there in front of a dying person and say, "You're disease is just to exotic and rare and expensive to treat. That's it."

But you are perfectly willing to stand there and say: "OK, you've earned $100,000 this year? Give me $40,000 of it in taxes - or else." Why is that?

It's a complicated problem. I can't and won't solve it.

Perhaps, then, you should reconsider your premises. It's only made complicated by the sacred cow of socialization. If I'm responsible for myself - and those I willingly accept responsibility for, like my family and some friends - then it becomes clear as a bell. I hold the hand of cards I was dealt. I continue to play it to the best of my ability. Sometimes I have good enough cards to win the round, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I make mistakes or have bad luck. I can live with that - so long as I know everybody else is doing the same.

And my opinion on it changes from time to time. I want to be some kid of hard-ass and say, "too bad... you, and you, and you, will die because you're poor and it's your own damn fault."

Maybe it is their fault, maybe it is just bad luck. See my comment above. Why would I expect the government to be my insurance and my insulation against every possible bad occurance?

And it doesn't seem right. But I will say that comparing health care to plumbing and auto repair ridiculous.

Why? My car breaks down - my bad luck, or maybe I neglected it. Either way, I need it to get to work and the grocery store.

Why on earth would I consider it my mechanic's duty to fix it for me, regardless of my ability to pay him, just because I need it?

It's a perfect parallel. You are just not able to get past the idea that every person is somehow responsible for every other person on the planet. That opens the door to a lot of the internal conflict that you seem to suffer from time to time. You're not alone in that.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
But why should that be so?

How should I know? Maybe so people don't starve to death.

And I'm just fine with that. By the same token, I fully expect your perspective to be self-centered, too; just centered around your self, not mine. What a nice system.

What system? What are you talking about? All I'm saying is that it's hard to let people die when they can be saved. Are you saying it's supposed ot be easy to let people die?

No, it requires a different opinion on the primacy of the Individual versus the primacy of the State. Danoff and I see the individual as supreme - each and every one of them.

Me too. And to let all these supreme individuals die and/or suffer is sad, that's all. Where do we differ here?

Others see the collective - call it "makind", call it "society", call it "the government", call it "life" - as supreme. Which, paradoxically, places no value whatsoever on the individual person. All are only seen by what they can give to others - others who are only valued by how much they need.

I don't know where you got this from. I don't think that.

It exists. We've got it through our employers. The paperwork is a serious PITA, but the insurance itself is reasonably affordable - enough to be cost effective, anyway - and fairly comprehensive.

It does exist, but not for everybody, and is shrinking dramatically for many more. My coverage has been lessened while it has doubled in cost. I need my tonsils removed. But it would cost me $6000.00 out of pocket so I can't do it. A co-worker of mine has pointed out to me that when he adds up the medical costs for his family, and then adds his premiums to that, he would've spent less money paying out of pocket. And prescription coverage, which is the real meat and potatoes of any health plan for most people, is insufficient in many cases. So if you're suggesting the health system in America is healthy and functioning well, I have to disagree. Even doctors are aware of the emphasis on profit over care. There is nothing in the hypocratic oath about pinching pennies for insurance companies. There is no good that will come from an HMO manager making patient treatment decisions with no medical training and having never even met the patient. Medicine's primary tool is not a ten-key machine. But it would seem that way a lot of the time.

But you are perfectly willing to stand there and say: "OK, you've earned $100,000 this year? Give me $40,000 of it in taxes - or else." Why is that?

What? No I'm not. And I don't know what I said that would make you think that.

My car breaks down - my bad luck, or maybe I neglected it. Either way, I need it to get to work and the grocery store.

Why on earth would I consider it my mechanic's duty to fix it for me, regardless of my ability to pay him, just because I need it?

I don't know. Would you? I wouldn't.

It's a perfect parallel. You are just not able to get past the idea that every person is somehow responsible for every other person on the planet.

Again. I don't know where you got that from. I don't think that.

That opens the door to a lot of the internal conflict that you seem to suffer from time to time. You're not alone in that.

I don't feel internal conflict. I just wouldn't want to be the one who says "You are going to die because nobody will help you." No matter how much you bring catch-words like "the state" and "society" into it, you are telling that person (supreme individual) that they are not worth saving. But I still don't know where you derived any of the labels you slapped on me. Certainly not from my post. I'm not for socialized anything. I just appreciate the weight of the problem and can't pretend it's more simple than it is. You seem to have mastered comprehension of Western Civilization and all of it's problems, are able to toss out the final word off-the-cuff. To me it seems cavalier and I'm suspicious of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These opinion threads always end up like this. Somebody posts an opinion, and whoever has a different opinion jumps on a bandwagon and tells them not only that they are wrong and exactly why, but even includes some ungrounded, inexplicable phychological analysis of the causes of their opinions. It's laden with cynical sarcasm, arrogance and hostility, is very predictable and tedious, and just not worth the energy. And that's what you just did again neon duke; a post that amounts to nothing but an all out attack on a fictional opinion you've invented for me. You obviously don't know my opinion, because I haven't even stated it, and yet you have so much to say about it. That is suspicious, and telling, as well.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
These opinion threads always end up like this. Somebody posts an opinion, and whoever has a different opinion jumps on a bandwagon and tells them not only that they are wrong and exactly why, but even includes some ungrounded, inexplicable phychological analysis of the causes of their opinions.

OK, fine. If you don't wish to discuss "opinions", why come to the opinion board? My feelings aren't hurt one way or the other.

It's laden with cynical sarcasm, arrogance and hostility, is very predictable and tedious, and just not worth the energy.

The last three parts of your statement I'll take at face value. However, please point out where I was cynical, arrogant, or hostile. I would sincerely appreciate it.

And that's what you just did again neon duke; a post that amounts to nothing but an all out attack on a fictional opinion you've invented for me. You obviously don't know my opinion, because I haven't even stated it, and yet you have so much to say about it. That is suspicious, and telling, as well.

Are you going to pretend that you've never posted here, espousing a "liberalist" (for want of a much better word) point of view? You've consistently railed against the capitalist system - at least the way it is currently practiced, you "attacked" danoff for being self-centered (if I attacked you in my post, I have to apply that word to you), and you've frequently expressed similar points concerning "poor people". Note that I am stopping short of calling you "socialist", because I don't think you are. Yet your expressed opinions seem demonstrate that you feel that it is, at least in some part, society's role to see that nobody is "left behind" (again for want of a better word).

If I have indeed fabricated this picture of you, it is a result of a persona you've portrayed. You have stated opinions. You may recant them or deny them if you wish; they're your opinions. I have no way to know if they ar real or not, but they are presented as real, and so I accept them as so.

Yet you certainly seem to have formed a picture of me. It's based on opinions I've expressed. I don't have a problem with that. Why else would I bother?

 

[vat_man]

Name calling aside, there is a fundamental difference in the schools of thought here.

I guess it boils down to whether you believe it is acceptable to have any member of society die of a disease or injury when it is preventable, costs aside.

In countries as affluent as the US and Australia, I don't personally believe it is.

 

[Talentless]

We may be affluent based on gdp or something, but individual incomes vary. These increased costs will burden someone, and, whatever the income level, their burden can have a consequence on the lives of others. Not to mention that most of the world seems to think we are morally obligated to aid various causes, so how we are supposed to do that and emulate Finnish healthcare, or whatever, and provide the security blanket which our large military spending does give to extent, perplexes me.

 

[Talentless]

I do not know where I would vote on universal healthcare, I do worry about costs. It could cost a trillion a year. the costs could go down too. My main problem with estimating costs is that the only known factors is that there will either be too many on the system, too little paying into it, or everything blanced. But how do you estimate well? Can you? People die later, retire later, demographics change. What about after war baby booms? I suppose that universal healthcare can exist in a capitalist system, so here it may work on a large scale, but there is still the tax burden on a people unaccustomed to taxation based on more of a sociastic system, and I do not know if socialism can pay for it. My understanding is that capitalism's ability to enable large growth among the individual allows for less of a dependency on the taxes of the masses income to pay for the care of others, which would seem to be something of an argument for keeping progressive taxation or implementing a flat tax. Economic suppositions aside, there does seem to be a view of "you have it, buy it." It's not always that simple.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Talentless
I do not know where I would vote on universal healthcare, I do worry about costs. It could cost a trillion a year. the costs could go down too. My main problem with estimating costs is that the only known factors is that there will either be too many on the system, too little paying into it, or everything blanced. But how do you estimate well? Can you? People die later, retire later, demographics change. What about after war baby booms? I suppose that universal healthcare can exist in a capitalist system, so here it may work on a large scale, but there is still the tax burden on a people unaccustomed to taxation based on more of a sociastic system, and I do not know if socialism can pay for it. My understanding is that capitalism's ability to enable large growth among the individual allows for less of a dependency on the taxes of the masses income to pay for the care of others, which would seem to be something of an argument for keeping progressive taxation or implementing a flat tax. Economic suppositions aside, there does seem to be a view of "you have it, buy it." It's not always that simple.

Look. A post that discusses the issue.

 

[Talentless]

I queued socialism in Google a few minutes ago, here is the first link displayed in the search: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/ I have only skimmed it. Perhaps, if I ever read it, I will change my views, lessen my biases.

 

[Talentless]

I will stay out of the argument between the three of you.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon duke
Are you going to pretend that you've never posted here, espousing a "liberalist" (for want of a much better word) point of view?
...your expressed opinions seem demonstrate that you feel that it is, at least in some part, society's role to see that nobody is "left behind"...

Your vocabulary (and it's irrelevance) makes me laugh. "Liberalist." Good one. Did you even read my post? You come off like some kind of ranting lunatic. I think the phrase "out of left field" fits.

So lets try again. Read all the words this time.

Originally posted by milefile
Regarding some unnamed system you mentioned:
What system? What are you talking about? All I'm saying is that it's hard to let people die when they can be saved. Are you saying it's supposed ot be easy to let people die?

Regarding the, um, "supremacy", of the individual:
Me too. And to let all these supreme individuals die and/or suffer is sad, that's all. Where do we differ here?

Regarding my "liberalist" view on the value of life, or "a life":
I don't know where you got this from. I don't think that.

Regarding my fictional "liberalist" tax preferences:
What? No I'm not. And I don't know what I said that would make you think that.

Regarding expecting a hand-out in the context of auto repair:
I don't know. Would you? I wouldn't.

Regarding my "liberealist" view of personal responsibility:
Again. I don't know where you got that from. I don't think that.

I think you equate capitalism with cruelty, or at least see it as an inevitable outcome. You, and others like you, seem to literally get off on freely admitting that you don't care about other people. Like it's some kind of badge of honor. You obviously don't understand that capitalism is the newest and least tried of any economy, that it is nowhere near perfect and can be improved in all areas. Your opinion leaves no room for improvement and seems to leech it's justification from a belief that your way is perfect. The capitaism you endorse is nothing more than an abstraction of fuedalism. In case you haven't noticed, your opinion is also waning in popularity the more educated each-and-every-supreme-individual becomes, the more it's consequences beyond the mall and you living room are revealed. The fact that technology takes away the buffer zone between me and the horror of war, the desperation of starvation, the decay of disease, and puts it in my living room is, ironically, a symptom of the very capitalism you seem to be so proud to have inherited. The growth of capitalism changes itself. The more vehement you and your counterparts are about preserving the Laisser-Faire version of it, the more effortlessly it will transform itself. What I say or what you say is of no consequence in the long run. All I do is observe and make my own life as good as I can. I don't expect anything from anyone. But most of all I want them to shut up and live their own lives, to simply mind their own business. Imagine that. Liberals that expect everybody to save everybody else are as stupid as conservatives who are hell bent on putting a stop to it at all costs. Eventually it will be possible to effortlessly live and let live, to just mind your own business. And this can only happen once government stays out of our lives, which is not the case now, and this is the problem. Both liberals and conservatives insist that everybody think like them and expect the government to make it so. It's two sides of the same coin. I'm over that. Think like you want. Just stay out of my face. I can make up my own mind.

 

[Danoff]

Fundamentally at the heart of the problem (and of almost all of my threads) is socialism vs. capitalism.

I’m taking on the issues one at a time, and trying to point out how things should be done (and perceived) differently if we are to maintain any coherency with the ideas that founded this country (individual responsibility and independence - in other words, capitalism).

It is always the socialist argument that other people should not be responsible for their mistakes. They are simply “less fortunate”. As though some people are luckier than others. I am not that superstitious. Granted, some people’s beginnings are tougher than others, but as long as the system stays capitalist, we can all become self-made-men (or women). Luck is not a factor.

We have not always had the sort of socialistic health care coverage that we have now. The insurance companies are a step in the wrong direction, toward socialistic health care coverage. So if you don’t like insurance companies, you should be arguing with me against universal health care. The government will only do a worse job than the insurance companies, who at least have to compete with each other.

We need to get back to the way it used to be. Pay for your health care as you go. As people have already pointed out, the blanket of protection that is supposed to be insurance is costing customers more than paying for medical treatment out of pocket.

But people seem to have this gut reaction against having to pay for medical treatment. As though doctors go through all of that schooling for everyone else’s sake (which would be awful). People seem to think that medical treatment should be free.

The reason they think that is because they feel bad for the less fortunate guy. The guy who doesn’t have enough money (presumably because his “luck” is bad) to pay for medical treatment. Oh this would be a crime, someone dies who “could” have been saved from death. It happens all the time. People die because they didn’t buckle their seatbelts. People die because they were too stupid to look both ways. People die because criminals are let out of jail on parole too early. All could be prevented. Should government be in the position of preventing every possible means of harm?

The truth is, it’s best for the medical community and for everyone if we fork over the money as we need our health care. If you don’t have enough money, your health care coverage isn’t quite as good. I think that makes perfect sense. What a crime to ask these people to live with medical treatment that only 50 years ago would have been considered state of the art. It was good enough for the richest people 50 years ago, why isn’t it good enough for the poorest people today?

 

[milefile]

So lets say, hypothetically, a family member of yours gets, say, cancer. It is totally operable, but the entire procedure, surgery, hospital bill, anesthesiologists, oncologists, MRI bill, etc, would cost upwards of $100,000. Very few people can pay that. These people will die?

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Well I live in a country with a national healthcare system, and it doesn't work. It's interesting that M5Power stated in his example as to why America should not have a universal healthcare system, something that actually happened to me.

I believe that the business side of the national health system in the UK is fundamentally inefficient. I find it difficult to fault the actual care that I have received, when I have received it, save for a disinterested doctor who singularly failed to detect a condition that was preventing me from walking, or the nurse who thought I had hurt myself whilst drinking.

I simply think that a state-funded organisation will never function on that scale if the government requires it to be run as a business. It should either be a business, or it should receive unlimited funding.

Talentless brings up an interesting topic when he mentions demographics. An issue in Scotland at the moment is that of the two major cities (Edinburgh and Glasgow), Edinburgh residents are more healthy per capita. This coincides with a lower per capita spending on takeaway foods, on alcohol and on cigarettes and other drugs. You are, in a 15 minute period in the centre of Glasgow, nine times more likely to see a person carrying an open tin of high-strength lager than you are in Edinburgh.

So, Glaswegians, statistically, mistreat themselves more than Edinburgh residents. And rather than pursuing a public education campaign, the Scottish government plans only to direct funding from Edinburgh healthcare to Glasgow healthcare. As I've already illustrated (and painfully experienced), Edinburgh healthcare is insufficiently resourced as it is.

I think this is at the heart of my disillusionment with public healthcare: I'm almost never ill (thankfully), but whenever I am, the public system fails me. I pay all this money in the form of taxation, and get NOTHING for it. At least with private medical insurance, when I need the healthcare, it's there for me.

Public healthcare as it is currently run in the UK cannot be sustainable, because it costs too much money, and fails too many people, and I'm not talking about those who receive treatment but are unfortunately beyond the point of health. Like I say, if you can get healthcare, it's of a consistently high standard. But too many people cannot get proper access to that care.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
Look. A post that discusses the issue.

Indeed it does, sort of. It also discusses taxation systems among other things.

I respectfully submit that my original post discussed the issue as well. So did danoff's post. Shall I try to restate my original case without directing it in repsonse to any identifiable member?

Talentless I encourage you to participate in the discussion, not stay out of it. I certainly don't see it as an argument and I would like to read what others think on the subject.

Honestly, I do not understand what the given wealth of a nation on the average has to do with it. Certainly if we took all of Australia's money, and divided it equally among the citizens, there would probably be enough for everybody to have decent housing (for a while), enough to eat (for a while), and reasonable health care (for a while). But why does that make it right to do so?

I'm leaving out the idea of temporary "insurance"-style public assistance. When I discuss socialization here, I mean chronic, systematic forms of government and society.

The fact of socialism in any form means that those who can afford to meet their own needs are required to also meet the needs of those who can't. There is no choice about it. The earned money of one person is taken away by threat of force - legal action - and used to subsidize the existence of another person or persons.

Personally I do not find that acceptable. I have no desire to live at the expense of someone else. Similarly, I don't wish to see my earned money used to support others who are not of my free choosing. Many people will say that is too black and white; that the real world doesn't operate that way. I do not apologize for believing it to be that simple. To me the real world could be that simple, and should be.

Socialization removes responsibility from the individual. It instead places need as the primary measure of a person's worth. Each and every human being is born needing. That is no measure of achievement or worthiness at all. The laziest, dumbest individual on the planet needs just as much food, shelter, and medicine as the most intelligent, productive person.

Socialism equates those two people, because in the eyes of need they are both the same.

When you shift the burden of responsibility onto society, then the only motivation for productive people is their own guilt or their own pride. I am too proud to accept the money of others except by earning it, so I work for a living rather than going on the dole. Nothing prevents me from doing so, except my own personal desire to meet my own needs for myself. So my best aspect - my desire and ability to provide for myself - becomes my greatest liability. It becomes the weapon by which I am forced to also provide for all of my fellow men.

I could easily give up and simply offer my need as the only entitlement required to receive food, shelter, and health care. In the words of a great person, the socialist system requires the sanction of the victim.

Philosophically there is no difference between "universal health care" and socialism. It is not a matter of degree. It was mentioned that it is not acceptable for people to go untreated in a country "as wealthy as Australia or the US". Why then would it be acceptable for any person to go untreated on a planet as rich the Earth?

As such, socialism is an unstable and non-sustainable system. It requires the subsidy of capitalism to function - it requires the sanction of the victim. Wealth is not simply "found"; it must be created. Nothing within a socialist system creates wealth - it simply moves wealth around as need sees fit. Eventually that wealth is consumed and must be replaced. Socialism must be imposed on capitalism in order to function, and it cannot provide for itself without that continuous infusion.

I find that immoral and unacceptable. I choose to live with it because at current there are not enough other victims willing to withdraw their sanction to allow me to join or create a society more to my liking. If it were so I would happily join danoff, Sage, and others in a society where our obligations are willingly chosen and our rewards are honestly earned.

Look! Another post that actually discusses the topic.

 

[milefile]

That entire post can be found in countless other places on this very site, and on the Rush Limbaugh show every day. It's called regurgitation. And a long one at that. Spare us. Anyone can paraphrase conservative dogma.

But I want to know if you are really with danoff on getting rid of health insurance?

neon duke: Do you agree that health insurance should be done away with?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
That entire post can be found in countless other places on this very site, and on the Rush Limbaugh show every day. It's called regurgitation. And a long one at that. Spare us. Anyone can paraphrase conservative dogma.

That entire rebuttal - and a short and dismissive one it is - can be found in any liberal organ anywhere on the planet. That doesn't make it any less of a regrugitation.

I wouldn't know about Limbaugh. I've never listened to his show. I've only heard it referenced in vague dismissals by people such as yourself.

Thank you so much for the respect, consideration, and courtesy you offer to me. It's deeply appreciated. It's so refreshing to have my honest, rational, and clearly explained thoughts written off so blythely just because they happen to disagree with yours.

If you wish me to consider the phrase "out of left field" then I think you need to consider the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black".

But I want to know if you are really with danoff on getting rid of health insurance?

neon duke: Do you agree that health insurance should be done away with?

Despite the fact that you've chosen to accuse me of making personal attacks instead of discussing the issue, and despite your avoidance of actually responding to my thoughts, and despite the fact that you continually do these things while accusing me of the very same practices, I will answer your question.

No, I do not agree that health insurance should be done away with. Surprised? People who disagree with you actually do think for themselves sometimes! Yet we still disagree! Shocking, isn't it?

Health insurance is a business or service just like any other. I see no reason to do away with it. If a health insurance company can make it cost-effective for me to deal with them, that's good for both of us. If they can't do so, then there is no reason for me to carry health insurance (note that this is a totally seperate issue from, say, vehicle liablilty insurance).

If it's cheaper for me to pay an insurance premium, then i will do so. If it's cheaper for me to pay out-of-pocket, then I will do that. I carry collision insurance (which isn't required) on my newer cars because it is more cost effective to do that and hedge against the cost of replacing the damaged car. It's the same with health insurance. My normal, yearly out-of-pocket expenses would about wash equal with what I'm paying in premiums - yet with insurance I have the added bonus of coverage against catastrophic illness or injury care.

It's not socialist - I'm paying some other entity to take that risk for me. They make money by setting their price points and coverage to make it profitable for them to do so, but still cost effective for me. Laissez-faire capitalism; mutually satisfactory to both parties involved.

Does that answer your actual question?

 

[Talentless]

Well, I put up a link that offers a socialist's viewpoint. It has an faq.

 

[Talentless]

I meant personal arguments.

 

[Talentless]

I can understand Mile's moral difficulty with the issue. I just don't know if there are any pragmatic answers.

 

[milefile]

A simple yes or no would've sufficed. Then you're not as capitalist as you say. Danoff is right. Health insurance is socialistic. You pay whether you get sick or not. When you're not sick someone else gets the benefit, the benefit you expect when you get sick, the treatment you are not paying for, but others are. And you do this voluntarily. You chose it because it is beneficial and necessary.

 

[Talentless]

Originally posted by milefile
So lets say, hypothetically, a family member of yours gets, say, cancer. It is totally operable, but the entire procedure, surgery, hospital bill, anesthesiologists, oncologists, MRI bill, etc, would cost upwards of $100,000. Very few people can pay that. These people will die?

Do you want price caps then? I don't know how government care would reduce the cost. I think all that it would do is reduce the needing individual's portion of the total cost. But, I can't say market forces would drive it down, not very fast anyway.

I am not referring to a specific person but I have noticed that, socialism as a system aside, it's advocates, or those one might think of as socialists, tend to be either jerks or unable to understand different concepts of fairness. If you don't like that your money is being taxed for the welfare of just about everyone, they either consider you selfish, and will say so, or they stare blankely, unable to come to terms with the notion that you had personal plans which could be hampered by their system. You did, afterall earn it in some way or another, not necessarily exploitation.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Talentless
I am not referring to a specific person but I have noticed that, socialism as a system aside, it's advocates, or those one might think of as socialists, tend to be either jerks or unable to understand different concepts of fairness. If you don't like that your money is being taxed for the welfare of just about everyone, they either consider you selfish, and will say so, or they stare blankely, unable to come to terms with the notion that you had personal plans which could be hampered by their system. You did, afterall earn it in some way or another, not necessarily exploitation.

The same is true for any adherent to a particular "ism" or ideology. It's especially relevant to your mention of "different concepts of fairness", of which neither side is willing to acknowledge. This is central to any so-called "liberal/conservative" dichotomy in that is it is conspicuously absent.

 

[Talentless]

Probably. Some people are more objective than others.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by neon_duke

I wouldn't know about Limbaugh. I've never listened to his show. I've only heard it referenced in vague dismissals by people such as yourself.

You should - it'll make you never want to see a conservative again. The man is egotistical and petty. It's a funny thing to listen to because, when he's not talking about himself, he's busy blaming everything bad on liberals, while praising conservatives for a job well done when good things happen.