I'd say something, but due to my political views, people here would just hate on me. I will say this, though. I believe that healthcare should be available to everybody within reason. I don't want to be paying for somebody's healthcare if they don't work for their money. If they had a disability that made them unable to work, I'd gladly pay for their healthcare.
[QUOTE=Barrowsx;30354670]I don't want to be paying for somebody's healthcare if they don't work for their money.[/QUOTE]
lmao
Even if you don't agree with it being socialized, health care simply should not be a for-profit industry.
Trying to profit off the sick and dying is just fucked up.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30355081]Even if you don't agree with it being socialized, health care simply should not be a for-profit industry.
Trying to profit off the sick and dying is just fucked up.[/QUOTE]
But America was forged on the exploitation of the downtrodden!
[QUOTE=Glaber;30350127]Really? If that were truly a right, then bankruptcy would be illegal. You want to try again?[/QUOTE]
Everyone is entitled to [b]life[/b], liberty and that 3rd thing. Think about it if we are able to spend 50% of are taxes on war in order to bring to justice the people that have killed a few thousand we should at least be willing to do the same for stopping deaths (not just avenging them) in the first place especially when its on a much bigger scale and much more practical to do so.
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Barrowsx;30354670]I don't want to be paying for somebody's healthcare if they don't work for their money. [/QUOTE]
So you don't want the disabled to have health care? That wont end well. Not to mention that your poor people don't work for there money belief is mostly wrong.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30350473]You're claiming that it isn't risk based? That incredibly weird. Most of your rhetoric is pretty weird.[/quote]
Er, where did I say that it wasn't? The core idea that you're taught in economics class is still there, obviously, but rather than that being their primary way of getting and retaining funds, they skim interest off of whatever you and thousands of others pay, and they fight to pay you anything when you actually try to use your insurance.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;30355270]
So you don't want the disabled to have health care? That wont end well. Not to mention that your poor people don't work for there money belief is mostly wrong.[/QUOTE]
Did you not read the rest of my post?
[QUOTE=Barrowsx;30354670]If they had a disability that made them unable to work, I'd gladly pay for their healthcare.[/QUOTE] Also, I understand that some poor people just can't get a job. I think that they should get some kind of reduction, but not a freebie.
[QUOTE=Barrowsx;30356759]Did you not read the rest of my post?
Also, I understand that some poor people just can't get a job. I think that they should get some kind of reduction, but not a freebie.[/QUOTE]
Where do you propose they get that money if they don't have a job?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;30355270]Everyone is entitled to [b]life[/b], liberty and that 3rd thing. Think about it if we are able to spend 50% of are taxes on war in order to bring to justice the people that have killed a few thousand we should at least be willing to do the same for stopping deaths (not just avenging them) in the first place especially when its on a much bigger scale and much more practical to do so.
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
So you don't want the disabled to have health care? That wont end well. Not to mention that your poor people don't work for there money belief is mostly wrong.[/QUOTE]
2 things are inevitable in life, Taxes and Death.
All any health care does is delay death. Also, if we were to have to pay taxes for a universal health care system, the bill for it should say so. Right now the Obamacare Law doesn't even have that. All it has is a source of funding that it can't enforce.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30355081]Even if you don't agree with it being socialized, health care simply should not be a for-profit industry.
Trying to profit off the sick and dying is just fucked up.[/QUOTE]
yea doctors are fucked up people
Doctors and companies profiting of the sick is bad? Certainly sounds bad, but I'd suggest that it is good. Greed drives productivity and the thought of getting rich makes many people want to succeed.
To take this further, people should be able to sell kidneys on the open market. Yes, greedy people should be able to exploit the sick and dying. Would allowing this be bad? No. The majority of people who need transplants never get a donor and die, and the incentive of money would give all these dying people kidneys. Both parties win. There's a lot to this argument and I suggest looking into it if you want, but greed could save so many lives.
[QUOTE=that1dude24;30356201]Er, where did I say that it wasn't? The core idea that you're taught in economics class is still there, obviously, but rather than that being their primary way of getting and retaining funds, they skim interest off of whatever you and thousands of others pay, and they fight to pay you anything when you actually try to use your insurance.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that statement is generally true at all. You can likely give me a bunch of examples, but overall those incidents are rare and you'll probably find that there was legality to it. Fraud exists, but not at the level you seem to think.
I think you're also saying that they take out of the pool for profit which is true, but I wouldn't say that is bad. Companies should be fighting for profit, and with their profits they should be compete with other insurers. Competition increases productivity, lowers costs, and more. The insurance market is pretty screwed up though because it is usually tied in with your job, which is a leftover from the 40's.
I'm still not really sure what you're saying, so I'm inferring what you are saying.
[QUOTE=Miskav;30347645]I really, REALLY cannot see why americans have such a huge problem with helping their fellow man.
What is it that makes you (seems to be mostly conservatives) into complete fucking assholes?
Oh no, you have to pay a mandatory fee! THATS HOW THEY COVER THE COSTS YOU DIMWIT.
Christ, I hope people like Glaber never get in a position of power in the future, cause fuck progress with them around.[/QUOTE]
People like Glaber [i]have[/i] been in power. Hell, there's a few chomping at the bit for president next year.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30357040]yea doctors are fucked up people[/QUOTE]
[img]http://rojerthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cardboard-boxes.jpg[/img]
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pepin;30358240]Doctors and companies profiting of the sick is bad? Certainly sounds bad, but I'd suggest that it is good. Greed drives productivity and the thought of getting rich makes many people want to succeed. [/QUOTE]
Most of the greed comes in at the level of pricing products & protecting copyrights, not developing new treatment.
Wait until you have cancer and no insurance and they want $80,000 per year for your treatment drug even though it costs them $1,000 to make it.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, you have to hand it to Glaber. He never backs down or accepts defeat despite having the majority of the forum arguing with and insulting him.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30358468][IMG]http://rojerthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cardboard-boxes.jpg[/IMG]
[/QUOTE]
no i really wanna hear why you think doctors are fucked up people :allears:
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;30358570]Regardless of where you stand on this issue, you have to hand it to Glaber. He never backs down or accepts defeat despite having the majority of the forum arguing with and insulting him.[/QUOTE]
what goes on inside glabers mind
[img]http://chrisglass.com/album/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/w_baller.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30358614]no i really wanna hear why you think doctors are fucked up people :allears:[/QUOTE]
No, I really don't wanna have to explain to you the difference between a non-profit and a for-profit medical institution. Doctors at non-profit hospitals still get paid just as much money as at for-profit hospitals. The difference is that for profit hospitals have administrators at the top charging sick people more than cost so they can load up their bank accounts.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30358847]No, I really don't wanna have to explain to you the difference between a non-profit and a for-profit medical institution. Doctors at non-profit hospitals still get paid just as much money as at for-profit hospitals. The difference is that for profit hospitals have administrators at the top charging sick people more than cost so they can load up their bank accounts.[/QUOTE]
and doctors charge sick people for their services as well
[QUOTE=analrapist;30358468]Most of the greed comes in at the level of pricing products & protecting copyrights, not developing new treatment.
Wait until you have cancer and no insurance and they want $80,000 per year for your treatment drug even though it costs them $1,000 to make it.[/QUOTE]
New treatments are developed because of greed. Yes, they may want to find a cure or help make life better, but money is a driving incentive. Of course there is no money gained in the process of devolving, the money only comes into play during production and selling. As much I dislike the cost of the drugs and the 7 year patent put on it, it is needed to outweigh all the research and other failed drugs and to create more incentive to research another treatment. I don't really see your argument because it assumes that there is no connection to research/design and sale, when they are actually linked in very tight. It is true that the researcher who found the discovery isn't going to be the one making the most money, but that's how it is in every case. The musician makes far less of their records than the music studio.
There are big reasons why nonprofit health research contributes so little, and it isn't that they don't exist because there are plenty of large nonprofit research groups, and I'd suggest you look into that.
I did get into a situation where I had no insurance and I needed expensive medicine. It would be about $400 for 60 pills, and I take five pills a day so that would only cover me for two weeks. The doctors were very good to me in that they gave me all of their samples and ordered more because they knew I'd be running out. Thankfully there was a company out there that hooked me up with free drugs and a lot of them. So I've been in a situation like that and I don't really think it's affected my views. Maybe if I ran out of my meds and had nonstop seizures I would.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30358847]No, I really don't wanna have to explain to you the difference between a non-profit and a for-profit medical institution. Doctors at non-profit hospitals still get paid just as much money as at for-profit hospitals. The difference is that for profit hospitals have administrators at the top charging sick people more than cost so they can load up their bank accounts.[/QUOTE]
This is the case at any company. The execs at the top make the most because they make the company work. You can get into whether it is right or wrong, but it's hard to argue that a company would do better by paying their CEO less. Ben and Jerries tried to do this and it worked out terrible. This seems like a side conversation.
Glaber. Stop ignoring half the arguments man. It's your damn thread.
I hope the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed. I don't agree with it for my own reasons. Try to tell me all you want that it's good but it's not. There is some good in it but it's not all good which it should be and anything otherwise should not pass. Like the part about fining people then say its not enforceable is just stupid of course it is enforceable. Why would you even include something like that, to waste ink? Waste space on hard drives? Filler? Tell me what logical reason would someone add a section to a bill that was supposedly just a bunch of meaningless unenforceable words?
[QUOTE=Nikota;30359297]Glaber. Stop ignoring half the arguments man. It's your damn thread.[/QUOTE]
you guys ignored all his arguments and ranted at him about using the term obamacare
i honestly dont see how you think your much better
[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;30359325]I hope the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed. I don't agree with it for my own reasons. Try to tell me all you want that it's good but it's not. There is some good in it but it's not all good which it should be and anything otherwise should not pass. Like the part about fining people then say its not enforceable is just stupid of course it is enforceable. Why would you even include something like that, to waste ink? Waste space on hard drives? Filler? Tell me what logical reason would someone add a section to a bill that was supposedly just a bunch of meaningless unenforceable words?[/QUOTE]
It's bad but I don't see why you can't change it instead of repealing it outright.
[editline]9th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30359329]you guys ignored all his arguments and ranted at him about using the term obamacare
i honestly dont see how you think your much better[/QUOTE]
to be fair his argument is exactly the same as every other thread he's ever started
[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;30359325]I hope the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed. I don't agree with it for my own reasons. Try to tell me all you want that it's good but it's not. There is some good in it but it's not all good which it should be and anything otherwise should not pass. Like the part about fining people then say its not enforceable is just stupid of course it is enforceable. Why would you even include something like that, to waste ink? Waste space on hard drives? Filler? Tell me what logical reason would someone add a section to a bill that was supposedly just a bunch of meaningless unenforceable words?[/QUOTE]
Lots of laws aren't easily enforceable but they still exist.
You should probably also state "your own reasons" for not supporting this since it is, in fact, a debate thread about it.
[QUOTE=Pepin;30358981]This is the case at any company. The execs at the top make the most because they make the company work. You can get into whether it is right or wrong, but it's hard to argue that a company would do better by paying their CEO less. Ben and Jerries tried to do this and it worked out terrible. This seems like a side conversation.[/QUOTE]
Matters of life and death are not "just any company."
It's hard to argue that the insane pay of CEOs is justifiable in any industry.
Do you know what CEOs actually do? They don't do shit.
Practically any college graduate with half a brain could do their jobs.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30361581]Matters of life and death are not "just any company."
It's hard to argue that the insane pay of CEOs is justifiable in any industry.
Do you know what CEOs actually do? They don't do shit.
Practically any college graduate with half a brain could do their jobs.[/QUOTE]
Going off an a different tangent from the original discussion it seems. Your argument is that anything that could have to do with life or death should no be run like a business. Well, I can point out a lot of issues with that, the main one that the lack of incentive would produce far less. People are going to invest far less if they know there isn't going to be any payout. Second issue is that the risks being taken are only going to be small, and this is related to investment as well. The majority of nonprofit research funds go to researching low risk solutions and this makes sense. If you're donating to a cause you want it to go towards research that has a higher chance of finding something, you don't want your donations going to something that is likely to go nowhere. When I say low risk, I mean low risk of failing, as in something useful will be found out. The issue with this is that low risk investments are very slow, provide little, and only have gradual payoffs. Nonprofit researchers are not able to research any high risk areas, and the government typically does not give any money out to high risk researching.
They system works out much better with for profit companies because they are very willing to take high risks in hopes of it paying off. As any investor knows, most of your investments need to be low-medium risk, but high risks investments are also needed. These big companies that are so hated take on many of these high risk proposals and most of it goes nowhere, but of course when there is success, the success is big and they capitalize on it. The system that allows for so many drugs to be researched (many never going anywhere) but a few being put on the market and provide a solution. These new drugs would never have been created under a nonprofit scheme because there would have no incentive to put a gamble on something of such high risk.
I can go on with this if you want, but I think my point is obvious. Would you prefer a system where many medical innovations are being made all in the name of making a profit? Or would you prefer a sluggish system where risk are not as likely to be taken but the people are doing it for the right cause?
The people on the top are there for a reason, and if they don't perform they get fired. CEOs ensure profit and performance, and they get results. If you're interested in challenging your opinion read this article and read many more. Look into how different CEOs have affected the entire business.
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/do-ceos-matter-absolutely/18819/[/url]
Is their pay justified? That's not my decision to make, it's the company board's decision, and they usually decide yes.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30361581]Matters of life and death are not "just any company."
It's hard to argue that the insane pay of CEOs is justifiable in any industry.
Do you know what CEOs actually do? They don't do shit.
Practically any college graduate with half a brain could do their jobs.[/QUOTE]
thats like saying the president doesnt do shit
ceo is sorta like a president of a company, they are elected by the board of directors, who is elected by stockholders in the company
their job is to basically run the entire corporation, they are the head and face of a corporation
[quote]A CEO’s responsibilities: everything, especially in a startup. The CEO is responsible for the success or failure of the company. Operations, marketing, strategy, financing, creation of company culture, human resources, hiring, firing, compliance with safety regulations, sales, PR, etc.—it all falls on the CEO’s shoulders.[/quote]
[url]http://www.steverrobbins.com/articles/ceojob#part1[/url]
a ceo has to be knowledgable in all aspects of the corporation to some degree because they have final say in every aspect
now there are marketing teams, pr teams, etc. but they always pitch their idea to executives and the ceo
if a ceo is bad at what they do they CAN be voted out by the bod, which means a ceo has to be working harder and smarter than anyone who is in any position to take that job
this means not only that they have to be working when they are at the office, but they have to be CONSTANTLY researching their industry, they have to attend conventions, parties, meetings, all the time just to make more contacts(so they also have to be incredibly charismatic), their life is their job, a ceo has little time for anything else other than his job
they are also the scapegoat all the time, if a corporation does poorly, then the ceo is the one to blame in most cases
they literally hold a corporation up and keep it running smoothly
they may not deserve what they get in many cases, but they deserve a great deal of compensation for their incredibly demanding job, being a ceo isnt something just anyone can handle, it takes a person of great work ethic, charisma, intelligence, education, ambition, and shrewdness to handle that job, i guarantee their job is nearly as stressful as the president of the united states, albeit not as important
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
and before you guys say im just outright defending evil corporations blah blah blah
i think the corporation as is is a bad entity whose whole objective goes against the public good(bring profits to shareholders, absolutely nothing else), the corporate mentality needs to be changed
but this isnt the fault of the ceo, its not the fault of the bod, its not the fault of any employee, because really they are just trying to do what they love or trying to make a living, i have respect for anyone who can take the job of ceo and be successful at it
[QUOTE=TH89;30353553]But [URL="http://forums.sega.com/showthread.php?88302-Sonic-Republican-or-Democrat"]Sonic is a Democrat![/URL][/QUOTE]
16 children can't be wrong
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;30354250]Only problem with socialized healthcare is the wait times. At least in Canada it is.
The longest I've ever had to wait for treatment was 1 1/2 weeks.[/QUOTE]
You can't measure wait times very much. They vary by day.
Socialised medicine in Canada is an insurance thing, the hospitals are still private. So unless the insurance is slowing down treatment process, then it's the hospitals issue, which is private.
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Barrowsx;30354670]I'd say something, but due to my political views, people here would just hate on me. I will say this, though. I believe that healthcare should be available to everybody within reason. I don't want to be paying for somebody's healthcare if they don't work for their money. If they had a disability that made them unable to work, I'd gladly pay for their healthcare.[/QUOTE]
You can't really measure who "Doesn't work for their money" Even then, it doesn't matter.
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;30356974]
All any health care does is delay death.[/QUOTE]
I like to imagine this is some thinly veiled attempt of a conservative to not support something everyone else does, like living.
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30357040]yea doctors are fucked up people[/QUOTE]
When you profit off sick people, yeah.
[QUOTE=amute;30367024]16 children can't be wrong
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
You can't measure wait times very much. They vary by day.
Socialised medicine in Canada is an insurance thing, the hospitals are still private. So unless the insurance is slowing down treatment process, then it's the hospitals issue, which is private.[/QUOTE]
iv heard the most problems with canadas socialized medicine is the fact many parts of canada are loosely populated and so it takes a lot of time for ambulances to arrive, and the fact that a hospital might service many different towns and communities, it can flood the er waitlist and increase time to be seen
there is also just the fact that since its free more people are able to use it whenever so it sort of causes a flood in the system, so you can wait a long time if the condition isnt immediately life threatening
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=amute;30367024]
When you profit off sick people, yeah.[/QUOTE]
i disagree
i believe that all that matters is results, if a doctor treats someone out of compassion, and another out of greed they are mostly the same thing because the result is treatment for someone who needs it
if an action made out of malice gets the same results as an action made out of love then there is little difference in the end
But the issue is, in an American hospital, you can wait anywhere between an hour to 7 hours. In a Canadian hospital, it's like 45 minutes to 10 hours. It's the same waiting time range. Same with England, France, Scandinavia. Waiting times are a non-sequitur.
[editline]10th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;30367085]
i disagree
i believe that all that matters is results, if a doctor treats someone out of compassion, and another out of greed they are mostly the same thing because the result is treatment for someone who needs it
if an action made out of malice gets the same results as an action made out of love then there is little difference in the end[/QUOTE]
Yeah accept, a lot of doctors cut corners, over prescribe medicine, fuck people with medical bills etc, so no, making money off the sick isn't really a good thing.
I don't understand why people hate the Health Care law, it helps everyone. Maybe the poor more but so what, they can't afford the 50,000$ procedure to have a heart transplant, they can't buy a fucking 2 million dollar home, and they don't have 100$ in their wallets as spare change. Money is hard to come by for most of America, so this should help out on those who can't pay for their health.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
