Anti Obama protesters not sure why they're anti Obama
110 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46942330]As for your second point that's why you buy insurance and pay subscription for medical care.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that we should have two different money pools, one that is used by those who can't afford healthcare and one that should be used by those who can?
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942357]So what you're saying is that we should have two different money pools, one that is used by those who can't afford healthcare and one that should be used by those who can?[/QUOTE]
What? No? What is it with that money pool which people who can't afford healthcare contribute to and take from? It makes no sense where are you getting this from?
I'm saying that everyone who can work should pay for their own healthcare the same way you pay for your house/food/etc. And they should pay for those who can't work and afford healthcare. The same way those who work pay for housing and food for those who can't work and afford these things. We didn't create universal housing or universal feeding because there are people who can't afford it. We only give it to those who can't afford it, not to everyone. Why is it different with healthcare?
'Do you see anybody lining the streets?'
*smug shit eating grin*
Well no sir, I don't. Mainly because they're not over-privileged idiots that can afford to take a day off work to hold an inflammatory and misinformed placard.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46942439]No I'm saying that everyone who can work should pay for their own healthcare the same way you pay for your house/food/etc. And they should pay for those who can't work and afford healthcare. The same way those who work pay for housing and food for those who can't work and afford these things. We didn't create universal housing or universal feeding because there are people who can't afford it. Why is it different with healthcare?[/QUOTE]
Why is it such a big deal if people who can afford it otherwise also benefit from it? In the end they will have paid more towards the pool than if they don't and don't contribute, otherwise it means they are part of the demographic which can't afford healthcare.
What your proposition would achieve, though, is contribute money towards health insurance companies, money which won't be redistributed towards a pool designed to help poorer people. Why not make them pay the same amount of money to a public healthcare they would also benefit from? Just seems like it would end up lining the pocket of private companies instead of going towards others.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942535]Why is it such a big deal if people who can afford it otherwise also benefit from it? In the end they will have paid more towards the pool than if they don't and don't contribute, otherwise it means they are part of the demographic which can't afford healthcare.[/QUOTE]
So they are paying more than if they would pay a private company? Well that's one reason. Another one, why do you think it's acceptable to force people to pay for their own healthcare? Why not tell people what they should eat too? I mean people clearly don't know what's best for them, the government should tell people what to spend their money on.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942535]What your proposition would achieve, though, is contribute money towards health insurance companies, money which won't be redistributed towards a pool designed to help poorer people. Why not them pay the same amount of money to a public healthcare they would also benefit from? Just seems like it would end up lining the pocket of private companies instead of going towards others.[/QUOTE]
1. Why would you redistribute that money? You want that pool to grow really big so that those who can't afford the healthcare never lose it due to underfunding.
2. You want your economy to grow and innovate. Make companies compete with each other for customers and lower their prices and increase the quality of their service. You want those private companies to earn money and spend it somewhere else. Also the smaller the taxes, the more cash people have and the more people buy, the more profitable to expand businesses and the more jobs there are. Everything goes fine as long as there is no price fixing. And making the whole industry government owned, works very similarly. Now I'm not saying it can't work. It can with excellent administration and big taxes. I just think that private model + funding those who can't afford it (just like we do with housing industry, food industry, clothing industry, etc, etc) is the most effective and fair way to do it. Why is healthcare different? Nobody deserves to starve, be homeless or wander naked, right? Lets make feeding, housing and clothing universal and public! And create public housing, public feeding and public clothing departments with thousands of office workers while we're at it.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46942695]So they are paying more than if they would pay a private company? Well that's one reason.[/QUOTE]
What? Where dis you get this idea? If anything in your system rich people end up paying more because they have to pay for their own healthcare in addition to taxes.
[QUOTE]Another one, why do you think it's acceptable to force people to pay for their own healthcare? Why not tell people what they should eat too? I mean people clearly don't know what's best for them, the government should tell people what to spend their money on.[/QUOTE]
Again. What? You advocated a system where rich people pay for poorer people's healthcare. Nobody's forcing them to get treatment. I don't see what this has to do with "forcing other people to eat".
[QUOTE]1. Why would you redistribute that money? You want that pool to grow really big so that those who can't afforded the healthcare never lose it due to underfunding.[/QUOTE]
Because otherwise they pay additional money towards private health insurance, which turns a profit it doesn't use to help poorer people. If you do universal coverage, you can have a higher benefit per capita for the same amount of money invested in total, because the government doesn't turn a profit from it.
[QUOTE]2. You want your economy to grow and innovate. Make companies compete with each other for customers and lower their prices and increase the quality of their service. You want those private companies to earn money and spend it somewhere else. Also the smaller the taxes, the more cash people have and the more people buy, the more profitable to expand businesses and the more jobs there are. Everything goes fine as long as there is no price fixing. And making the whole industry government owned, works very similarly. Now I'm not saying it can't work. It can with excellent administration and big taxes. I just think that private model + funding those who can't afford it (just like we do with housing industry, food industry, clothing industry, etc, etc) is the most effective and fair way to do it. Why is healthcare different?[/QUOTE]
I don't see what that has to do with my point. Private health insurance provide no added value compared to government controlled health insurance. It's a simple redistribution of wealth.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942825]What? Where dis you get this idea? If anything in your system rich people end up paying more because they have to pay for their own healthcare in addition to taxes.[/QUOTE]
In my model someone who works pays for himself and for the poor. In your model they pay both of these in taxes. If the healthcare is private the tax is lower because the money from it doesn't have to cover everyone's insurance, just the poor people's. You can't just say "they have to pay for their own healthcare in addition to taxes" and act like it's gonna be more because the tax will be lower.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942825]Again. What? You advocated a system where rich people pay for poorer people's healthcare. Nobody's forcing them to get treatment. I don't see what this has to do with "forcing other people to eat".[/QUOTE]
Because you can't decide you don't want to pay for the healthcare. You don't have a choice. Whereas in my model you don't have to pay for your own healthcare if you don't want to. You just have to pay a fraction of what you'd pay in your model for the poor.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942825]Because otherwise they pay additional money towards private health insurance, which turns a profit it doesn't use to help poorer people. If you do universal coverage, you can have a higher benefit per capita for the same amount of money invested in total, because the government doesn't turn a profit from it.[/QUOTE]
You want those hospitals to have a profit and keep competing between each other. That's how the prices go down and the quality of service goes up. And you want those hospitals to spend the money on new gear. And no you can't have a higher benefit per capita for the same amount of money invested because with public healthcare you need to create fuckton of paperwork and pay thousands of people for shoveling it. It's a waste of money. Because there is no real incentive to minimize the costs and maximize the productivity.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46942825]I don't see what that has to do with my point. Private health insurance provide no added value compared to government controlled health insurance. It's a simple redistribution of wealth.[/QUOTE]
I've just explained to you why it's potentially more effective.
And explain this to me because you avoided answering: [quote]I just think that private model + funding those who can't afford it (just like we do with housing industry, food industry, clothing industry, etc, etc) is the most effective and fair way to do it. Why is healthcare different? Nobody deserves to starve, be homeless or wander naked, right? Lets make feeding, housing and clothing universal and public! And create public housing, public feeding and public clothing departments with thousands of office workers while we're at it. [/quote]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46944939]In my model someone who works pays for himself and for the poor. In your model they pay both of these in taxes. If the healthcare is private the tax is lower because the money from it doesn't have to cover everyone's insurance, just the poor people's. You can't just say "they have to pay for their own healthcare in addition to taxes" and act like it's gonna be more because the tax will be lower.[/QUOTE]
The tax might be lower because there's less people to pay for, but the private health insurance costs have to be at minimum the average cost of healthcare, because there are as many people paying for it as there are people benefiting from it. In the case of universal healthcare you have to pay for yourself + compensate for people who can't afford it outright, so you end up paying the same amount either way.
[QUOTE]Because you can't decide you don't want to pay for the healthcare. You don't have a choice. Whereas in my model you don't have to pay for your own healthcare if you don't want to. You just have to pay a fraction of what you'd pay in your model for the poor.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I don't see a problem with allowing people who are retarded or suicidal enough not to get treated not to pay for their own healthcare.
[QUOTE]You want those hospitals to have a profit and keep competing between each other. That's how the prices go down and the quality of service goes up. And you want those hospitals to spend the money on new gear. And no you can't have a higher benefit per capita for the same amount of money invested because with public healthcare you need to create fuckton of paperwork and pay thousands of people for shoveling it. It's a waste of money. Because there is no real incentive to minimize the costs and maximize the productivity.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about hospitals though, but about health insurance.
The lack of incentive to minimize costs can be a problem, though. But a lack of competitiveness can also fuck everybody over, just look at how ISPs work in the US. If such a thing happens in the domain of health it could end up being way more grave than it is at present. Keep in mind that private health insurance would need to shovel fucktons of paperwork as well, it only comes down to who does it the cheapest.
Cutting costs can also yield disastrous results if it's not regulated properly. What if insurances start denying the reimbursement of various treatments to maximize their profits?
I think no matter what you allow in terms of private health insurances, there should always be the option to fall back to a government-owned alternative.
[QUOTE]And explain this to me because you avoided answering:
I just think that private model + funding those who can't afford it (just like we do with housing industry, food industry, clothing industry, etc, etc) is the most effective and fair way to do it. Why is healthcare different? Nobody deserves to starve, be homeless or wander naked, right? Lets make feeding, housing and clothing universal and public! And create public housing, public feeding and public clothing departments with thousands of office workers while we're at it.[/QUOTE]
I think the main difference here is that healthcare can get costly fast and beyond your control. Paying a house, clothing or food is something you plan, and it always stay within a certain price range. With healthcare, even someone who can usually afford his routine checks and treatment can get fucked overnight because he falls victim to an accident.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46945140]The tax might be lower because there's less people to pay for, but the private health insurance costs have to be at minimum the average cost of healthcare, because there are as many people paying for it as there are people benefiting from it. In the case of universal healthcare you have to pay for yourself + compensate for people who can't afford it outright, so you end up paying the same amount either way.[/QUOTE]
Same, similar, more, less. We don't have the numbers but saying it's gonna be more because it's your own insurance + tax is dishonest. I'd say you'd pay less, but that's my opinion I don't have any concrete facts to support it.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46945140]Fair enough, I don't see a problem with allowing people who are retarded or suicidal enough not to get treated not to pay for their own healthcare.[/QUOTE]
They have the right to be retarded. And I shouldn't be paying for treatment of some retard who did something stupid to harm himself. He should be paying for his own injuries.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46945140]I wasn't talking about hospitals though, but about health insurance.
The lack of incentive to minimize costs can be a problem, though. But a lack of competitiveness can also fuck everybody over, just look at how ISPs work in the US. If such a thing happens in the domain of health it could end up being way more grave than it is at present.[/QUOTE]
Yes you don't want price fixing or monopoly. But making an industry government owned works similarly. They can give you shit service and you'll come back anyway. They don't have to fight for a customer. You're gonna pay no matter what.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46945140]Keep in mind that private health insurance would need to shovel fucktons of paperwork as well, it only comes down to who does it the cheapest.[/QUOTE]
Sure they do, the just do it more effectively. They have a reason to be effective.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46945140]Cutting costs can also yield disastrous results if it's not regulated properly. What if insurances start denying the reimbursement of various treatments to maximize their profits?
I think no matter what you allow in terms of private health insurances, there should always be the option to fall back to a government-owned alternative.[/QUOTE]
That's what's regulation is for. There are standards what can and can't be in your food. There are standards how the car should be made or else the model won't be allowed to be sold, etc. This shouldn't be any different.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46945140]I think the main difference here is that healthcare can get costly fast and beyond your control. Paying a house, clothing or food is something you plan, and it always stay within a certain price range. With healthcare, even someone who can usually afford his routine checks and treatment can get fucked overnight because he falls victim to an accident.[/QUOTE]
The roof of your house could break or a pipe could break fucking up your entire home. This could get costly too. If you get into a car crash you can lose a car that you can't afford to replace. That's what insurances are for.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;46945187]Same, similar, more, less. We don't have the numbers but saying it's gonna be more because it's your own insurance + tax is dishonest. I'd say you'd pay less, but that's my opinion I don't have any concrete facts to support it.[/QUOTE]
I don't have either, but I think the difference isn't very substantial.
[QUOTE]They have to be retarded. And I shouldn't be paying for treatment of some retard who did something stupid to harm himself. He should be paying for his own injuries.[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you mean by that though. We don't do background checks or shit like that to determine whether they took avoidable risks before treating someone.
[QUOTE]Yes you don't want price fixing or monopoly. But making an industry government owned works similarly. They can give you shit service and you'll come back anyway. They don't have to fight for a customer. You're gonna pay no matter what.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Sure they do, the just do it more effectively. They have a reason to be effective.[/QUOTE]
Hence why I suppose having alternatives can be healthy, just don't abolish government-owned insurances as it could act as a way to curb excess.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46945210]Not sure what you mean by that though. We don't do background checks or shit like that to determine whether they took avoidable risks before treating someone.[/QUOTE]
I corrected myself it should be"They have the right to be retarded. And I shouldn't be paying for treatment of some retard who did something stupid to harm himself. He should be paying for his own injuries." sorry. You reply faster than I reread my posts.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46945210]Hence why I suppose having alternatives can be healthy, just don't abolish government-owned insurances as it could act as a way to curb excess.[/QUOTE]
I guess government owned insurance company wouldn't hurt? I don't really see the point but I wouldn't oppose it if it's optional.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;46945757]I see mass debate successfully migrated[/QUOTE]
It never waited for the redesign in the first place.
[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;46937684]Ownership of land is a critical but complicated question. What exactly legitimizes a states (often enormous) claims on land?
What moral right does the Sweden the right to stop me from building a house in the middle of nowhere and do drugs all day?
Instead I am to pay lots of money to be allowed to cultivate a piece of worthless land, then get the approval of state bureaucrats and finally abide laws decided by people that will never be there.
Socialism, for all it's merits, is oppressive at its core. Its purpose is literally to take and redistribute wealth by force. While democracy can legitimize it to an extent, the individual still has little influence over what the taxation of their wealth is used for. Now, despite these flaws, the welfare state may still be the best solution for this day and age. We should still maintain ideals, however, both for today and the future.[/QUOTE]
The state is legitimized by the people voting for the democratic government that owns that land. You could use your vote to try and change the fact that you can't build your shit anywhere you like (good luck).
But what if someone else wanted to build there as well? Would you be the one allowed to just because you got there first (who made that rule?)? Is that more legitimate than the government owning it (the answer is "no")? And who would be enforcing your right to build there, effectively deciding what the other person can do (only you)?
You're saying the state doesn't have any moral right to decide who can build where, but yeah, they do. The government is chosen by the people, so by extension you partly decide what to do with that land, and apparently everyone has so far agreed (by proxy, democratically) that no one should live there.
[QUOTE=bitches;46914051]At a shop in a big tourist site in Tennessee I saw yesterday:
[t]http://i.imgur.com/EAYLKUK.jpg[/t]
Blatantly racist picture titled "The Forgotten Man"
(the white man)
[/QUOTE]
I think the "forgotten man" is meant to be veteran. Would certainly fit in what republicans love.
I, as an American, would much rather have the Canadian health-care... FREE. I mean, shit, I have to pay $450 for getting 3 shots in my neck for a TEST. A TEST. If it was an actual procedure, that'd make sense. But, a one-time - going to wear off in 4 hours, TEST... Seriously. Insurance companies need the reform, not the healthcare.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.