Progarchives.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
  FAQ FAQ  Forum SearchSearch  Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 254255256257258 280>
Author
Message
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27946
Post Options Post Options   Quote stonebeard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Libertarian Thread # 3: Liberty will never die
    Posted: October 03 2013 at 21:04
Originally posted by Dean

And there isn't a western country that "cannot afford" universal health care.


Depends on what that countries priorities are. Can we afford universal healthcare and Social Security as well as endless wars, subsidies, arms shipments, and bailouts? Nope. Can we afford universal healthcare and Social Security without the other sh*t? Probably.

Too bad we love us some military industrial complex and cronyism.

Also, can we please leave Old Testament traditions where they belong, 4,000 years in the past.

Edited by stonebeard - October 03 2013 at 21:06
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31454
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2013 at 21:04
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear Smile.

The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before.


This is a mess of an idea.  A Libertarian isn't for making people legally responsible for the decisions of other adults.

Your broke brother attempts to kill himself, and that makes you responsible for the costs of his healthcare?


I would consider myself responsible to support him by whatever means possible, and yes, that would include paying for medical assistance insofar as I was able.  In fact, if he was broke I would consider myself responsible to assist him financially in the first place.

This isn't really a new idea either.  It goes back to ancient societies in which familial piety was one of the most important virtues (especially that of children to parents, as the Bible makes clear was the case in Israel).  It was everyone's duty (at least every male's duty, since those cultures were patriarchal) to honor and support their family.  Leviarite marriage was a part of this, too.  I think that we have lost this idea in today's culture and need to get it back (minus the patriarchal part).  That's one of the big reasons we have stuff like medicare and social security, actually;  the people supported it because it meant they didn't have to take care of their parents anymore. 


Imposing Old Testament values on 21st. century Americans is unwise.  If people don't want to take care of their elderly parents who took care of them, then they're probably a****les. 

Doesn't mean the law should force them to do it.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31454
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2013 at 21:05
Originally posted by stonebeard

Originally posted by Dean

And there isn't a western country that "cannot afford" universal health care.


Depends on what that countries priorities are. Can we afford universal healthcare and Social Security as well as endless wars, subsidies, arms shipments, and bailouts? Nope. Can we afford universal healthcare and Social Security without the other sh*t? Probably.

Too bad we love us some military industrial complex and cronyism.


Look at your budget (what budget, right?).

You can't afford any of the above.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27946
Post Options Post Options   Quote stonebeard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2013 at 21:07
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by stonebeard

Originally posted by Dean

And there isn't a western country that "cannot afford" universal health care.


Depends on what that countries priorities are. Can we afford universal healthcare and Social Security as well as endless wars, subsidies, arms shipments, and bailouts? Nope. Can we afford universal healthcare and Social Security without the other sh*t? Probably.

Too bad we love us some military industrial complex and cronyism.


Look at your budget (what budget, right?).

You can't afford any of the above.


Are we back to comparing a household budget to a nation's budget or am I missing something?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2504
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2013 at 21:09
Originally posted by Dean

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear Smile.

The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before.
Doesn't bode too well for orphans, single parents, divorcées, or those with one or two generations of elderly relatives who simply refuse to die in a timely fashion, or those families with genetic disorders (it's starting to pong of eugenics already), or those that suffer a tragic accident such as a house-fire or more than one person gets sick at the same time, or any family with disabled dependants, or those rendered incapacitated and/or incapable by the negligence of others. It also favours those families with "just the right number" of kids - if you have too many kids you cannot afford to keep them alive, if you have too few they wouldn't be able to afford to look after you or each other in later life; and since larger families have tendancy to be in the poorer demographics it also looking a just little elitist. This is without considering same-sex families, outcasts and other forms of estrangement, such as refugees.
 
To continue my previous train of thought. Health care isn't an obligation either, natural or otherwise. And there isn't a western country that "cannot afford" universal health care.


Most of the examples you mentioned would most likely have other family that can assist in paying for healthcare besides the members who for whatever reason are gone.  And I didn't say that this system would pay for everyone; there would still be a need for charities and possibly a role for government; see my reply to Teo above.

The system is actually intended to help families with very few or very many children; this isn't just a parent-child thing (that already exists, at least in part); under this system you have an obligation to assist your brother/sister/cousin if they can't provide healthcare to their kids, or if their kids can't support them; obviously there will be some people who have no close relatives with financial means but again, I don't make any claims that this system will cover everyone, only that it will get many more people healthcare in a just fashion.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31454
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2013 at 21:10
Originally posted by stonebeard

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by stonebeard

Originally posted by Dean

And there isn't a western country that "cannot afford" universal health care.


Depends on what that countries priorities are. Can we afford universal healthcare and Social Security as well as endless wars, subsidies, arms shipments, and bailouts? Nope. Can we afford universal healthcare and Social Security without the other sh*t? Probably.

Too bad we love us some military industrial complex and cronyism.


Look at your budget (what budget, right?).

You can't afford any of the above.


Are we back to comparing a household budget to a nation's budget or am I missing something?


Did I ever do that?  Are the principles that different?

Even if you could afford a government-run healthcare system, do you think it would keep aggregate costs down?  Do you think it would be efficient?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2504
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2013 at 21:18
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear Smile.

The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before.


This is a mess of an idea.  A Libertarian isn't for making people legally responsible for the decisions of other adults.

Your broke brother attempts to kill himself, and that makes you responsible for the costs of his healthcare?


I would consider myself responsible to support him by whatever means possible, and yes, that would include paying for medical assistance insofar as I was able.  In fact, if he was broke I would consider myself responsible to assist him financially in the first place.

This isn't really a new idea either.  It goes back to ancient societies in which familial piety was one of the most important virtues (especially that of children to parents, as the Bible makes clear was the case in Israel).  It was everyone's duty (at least every male's duty, since those cultures were patriarchal) to honor and support their family.  Leviarite marriage was a part of this, too.  I think that we have lost this idea in today's culture and need to get it back (minus the patriarchal part).  That's one of the big reasons we have stuff like medicare and social security, actually;  the people supported it because it meant they didn't have to take care of their parents anymore. 


Imposing Old Testament values on 21st. century Americans is unwise.  If people don't want to take care of their elderly parents who took care of them, then they're probably a****les. 

Doesn't mean the law should force them to do it.


Why is it unwise?  I'm not claiming here that we should impose Mosaic law on America; it was written specifically for the people of Israel.  Essentially, as G..K. Chesterton put it, "military orders designed to get an ark through the Sinai desert."  But that doesn't mean that there aren't values in there that are good and apply to America just as well as the Jewish people.  "Do not murder," or "Do not steal," for example. 

I believe that each person has a natural obligation to care for their family, and that obligation is much broader in scope than that which we have to all other human beings (i.e. don't harm them in any way).  I think that this obligation should be reflected in our legal system.

Do you think parents should be required by law to support their children?  Why or why not?  If so, why shouldn't children be legally required to support their parents in their old age?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Eclectic Prog Team

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31454
Post Options Post Options   Quote Epignosis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2013 at 21:37
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Hi PA libertarians, I'm back.  Got burnt out on discussing politics for a while but a good discussion with my composition teacher, Dr. Sharpe, after my lesson today got my mind back in gear Smile.

The solution to the healthcare problem is rather simple, actually.  Make each person legally responsible for the economic burden of healthcare upon his (extended) family members.  This isn't that far from basic child protection laws that require parents to take care of their kids.  It just extends it the opposite way - as well as brother/sister to brother/sister, grandchild to grandparent (and vice versa) etc.  No one would be required to pay for anyone's health care except for the people who they have a natural obligation to.  Unless someone had no close relatives with financial means, they could easily get at least some healthcare assistance, leaving a much smaller problem for private charities to take care of.  We could eliminate or at least drastically scale down medicare and medicaid.  It wouldn't be perfect obviously but it sounds better to me than either Obamacare or what we had before.


This is a mess of an idea.  A Libertarian isn't for making people legally responsible for the decisions of other adults.

Your broke brother attempts to kill himself, and that makes you responsible for the costs of his healthcare?


I would consider myself responsible to support him by whatever means possible, and yes, that would include paying for medical assistance insofar as I was able.  In fact, if he was broke I would consider myself responsible to assist him financially in the first place.

This isn't really a new idea either.  It goes back to ancient societies in which familial piety was one of the most important virtues (especially that of children to parents, as the Bible makes clear was the case in Israel).  It was everyone's duty (at least every male's duty, since those cultures were patriarchal) to honor and support their family.  Leviarite marriage was a part of this, too.  I think that we have lost this idea in today's culture and need to get it back (minus the patriarchal part).  That's one of the big reasons we have stuff like medicare and social security, actually;  the people supported it because it meant they didn't have to take care of their parents anymore. 


Imposing Old Testament values on 21st. century Americans is unwise.  If people don't want to take care of their elderly parents who took care of them, then they're probably a****les. 

Doesn't mean the law should force them to do it.


Why is it unwise?  I'm not claiming here that we should impose Mosaic law on America; it was written specifically for the people of Israel.  Essentially, as G..K. Chesterton put it, "military orders designed to get an ark through the Sinai desert."  But that doesn't mean that there aren't values in there that are good and apply to America just as well as the Jewish people.  "Do not murder," or "Do not steal," for example. 

I believe that each person has a natural obligation to care for their family, and that obligation is much broader in scope than that which we have to all other human beings (i.e. don't harm them in any way).  I think that this obligation should be reflected in our legal system.

Do you think parents should be required by law to support their children?  Why or why not?  If so, why shouldn't children be legally required to support their parents in their old age?


Parents had their children.

Children didn't have their parents.
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: DruryUniversity
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2504
Post Options Post Options   Quote Ambient Hurricanes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2013 at 23:05
Point taken.  But what if the parents die, or for some other reason are unable to take care of their kids?  Who is responsible for the children then?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32007
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 06:38
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Dean

And there isn't a western country that "cannot afford" universal health care.


I disagree.
If you can bail out banks, muster armies to wage wars, build town halls, dams and public monuments, fund libraries, art galleries and national parks, schools, colleges and universities, launch ships, rockets and satelites, make movies and tv programmes, build factories, offices, malls, roads, bridges and rail networks, construct sports statiums and arenas, distribute basic utilities of water, gas, electricty and telephones, suport a judiciary, prision system, law enforcement and emergency services, operate personal transport devices, own houses, lawns and picket fences, eat three meals a day, play on the internet, and collect assorted items of memorabilia and trinkets, own a digital watch, flat-screen tv and a microwave, buy a bar of soap, a big mac or stick of gum, wear blue jeans and sneakers, donate to a church, charity or brewery then the country you live in can afford universal health care. You just prefer to spend your money on something else.
 
 
Originally posted by Epignosis

All of the ideas presented assume that healthcare is inherently expensive.  I contend that it need not be.
I think you are talking of pennies. There is no doubting that you can make it less expensive, you cannot make it inexpensive. Health care is inherently expensive and can do nothing but get more expensive as the population ages, the longer health care keeps a population alive the more it is going to cost. Now we are not dying of young-age diseases like polio, tb, diphtheria, rubella, influenza, malaria, whooping cough, pneumonia, tetanus, typhoid yellow fever and smallpox, and we are not dying from infection caused by physical damage or the physical damage itself, we are dying of old-age diseases like cancer and heart failure, which are more expensive to care for. We haven't eradicated any of those young-age diseases, health care is constantly preventing them and the cost of prevention is cheaper than the cost of curing them, but it still costs money and requires a health care regime to support it.
 
Originally posted by Epignosis


I needed an automotive repair and couldn't afford it.  My mechanic decreased my bill and offered to let me pay installments.  Fortunately, the reduction made it so that I could pay in full.
(Sorry, I've taken that quote out of context, but only slightly)
 
Bartering may save you a few dollars on fixing your car or buying a rug in a yard sale and shopping around may save you a few dollars on buying your monthly groceries, but what you are negotiation there is a percentage of the profit, the seller isn't going to sell you something for a loss. Even in the serivice industry there is a point where the provider cannot afford to do business with you, where the cost of providing the services is more than you are willing to pay. A commodity or service that is expensive cannot be made inexpensive by bartering. But as I said, analogies are specious, health care isn't a simple commodity or service so we should not treat it as one.
 


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32954
Post Options Post Options   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 07:13
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Finnforest

Single payer.  Let's just get it over with.  


Sure- if you're happy with how all the other federal agencies are run. 

 
To be fair, (and yes, this is obviously what won't happen) it need not be run by the federal government.
It can be paid for largely by it but it'd obviously be preferably to have it decentralized in its working.
 
 
 
As for affording, yes we can.
If you mean that literally, a country (that issues its own currency) can afford anything. Though of course you don't want deficits to be too large, but it can always afford whatever it wants.
If you mean in terms of deficits, why can't the military budget be reduced, wasteful government, and raise revenue? It can even be done in ways such as lowering taxes but eliminating loopholes, broadening the base (if one wants that) and making investment income and etc taxed as income. Reduce subsidies, corporate handouts etc etc
 
It can absolutely be afforded


Edited by JJLehto - October 04 2013 at 07:45
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32954
Post Options Post Options   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 07:33
Originally posted by Epignosis

All of the ideas presented assume that healthcare is inherently expensive.  I contend that it need not be.
 
It's possible, could you elaborate why?
By studying a history of healthcare, it certainly seems to be inherently expensive. Driven by technology.
 
Before the 1920s hopsitals were places to die. Then things got better, and they got more expensive. I believe many Americans couldn't really afford it, thus various insurance plans/blue cross orgs/communal groups and etc started popping up. Can't really say this is due to gov intervention since there wasn't any.
 
Yes, gov has made things worse by creating the tax incentives for businesses (which should be ended) and creating HMOs and all types of laws and sh*t, this cant be denied. Ending employer provided insurance would open up competition and help business, I feel this is necessary (and Im not sure ACA will accomplish it). Should a universal health plan thus pick up the slack or leave it solely to markets? I just feel too many would be unable to afford it with the latter.
 
I mean, when my mother had a major surgery and hopstial stay, it took 2 or 3 years for us to finally get back to normal financially from that. This was WITH insurance paying 80% of it. Sure, gov has made things worse, but I can't believe it's not inherently expensive.
 


Edited by JJLehto - October 04 2013 at 07:49
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 16132
Post Options Post Options   Quote The T Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 08:18
This will sound a little like cheap advertising but it seems that a lot of people in the US care more about their fellow Americans having easy access to guns than to doctors. 

I know I know nobody is asking for anybody else to pay for your own gun... I know. It just seems quite brutish to me that tools to kill are easier to obtain than tools to save a life. 
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 32007
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 08:21
Originally posted by The T

This will sound a little like cheap advertising but it seems that a lot of people in the US care more about their fellow Americans having easy access to guns than to doctors. 

I know I know nobody is asking for anybody else to pay for your own gun... I know. It just seems quite brutish to me that tools to kill are easier to obtain than tools to save a life. 
urban gun study chart
The total health care bill for treating gun-shot wounds was $629 million in 2010
 


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32954
Post Options Post Options   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 08:24

Maybe someone can enlighten me...before ACA what exactly was the deal with the uninsured? Lets say they went to a doctor or hopsital, some were turned away I'm sure, but was it up to the doctor? I also once heard that it was illegal to be denied care, at least basic, even if you couldn't pay. That could be flat out wrong IDK

 
Anyone know? I always thought we already pay for those who cant afford it? *shrugs*
 
 
 
heh we sure do love guns here in merka. Granted I think "gun control" is silly, and data I've seen from both the US and even Europe :o seem to indicate other factors have greater influence on crime than guns themselves....but I do wish we were less nutty about it. Like, just enjoy your guns people. They make their cause look bad when they carry on how they do.


Edited by JJLehto - October 04 2013 at 08:26
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
dr wu23 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
Post Options Post Options   Quote dr wu23 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 08:33
Originally posted by JJLehto

Originally posted by Epignosis

All of the ideas presented assume that healthcare is inherently expensive.  I contend that it need not be.
 
It's possible, could you elaborate why?
By studying a history of healthcare, it certainly seems to be inherently expensive. Driven by technology.
 
Before the 1920s hopsitals were places to die. Then things got better, and they got more expensive. I believe many Americans couldn't really afford it, thus various insurance plans/blue cross orgs/communal groups and etc started popping up. Can't really say this is due to gov intervention since there wasn't any.
 
Yes, gov has made things worse by creating the tax incentives for businesses (which should be ended) and creating HMOs and all types of laws and sh*t, this cant be denied. Ending employer provided insurance would open up competition and help business, I feel this is necessary (and Im not sure ACA will accomplish it). Should a universal health plan thus pick up the slack or leave it solely to markets? I just feel too many would be unable to afford it with the latter.
 
I mean, when my mother had a major surgery and hopstial stay, it took 2 or 3 years for us to finally get back to normal financially from that. This was WITH insurance paying 80% of it. Sure, gov has made things worse, but I can't believe it's not inherently expensive.
 
I agree and I'd also like to hear how costs can be lowered by using a 'free market system'. Ain't gonna happen.
Pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and doctors have some of the highest fees out there and that has steadily gone up the way it currently is. They will not police themselves and help make healthcare more affordable nor help provide it for those who don't even have it  since they like the big bucks. If some govt regulation or something similar doesn't step in to help those who need healthcare it will only get worse. The ACA might not be a good answer but leaving it the way it is, the GOP answer, will make it even worse in time.
Et In Arcadia Ego
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29097
Post Options Post Options   Quote Padraic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 08:53
Originally posted by JJLehto

Maybe someone can enlighten me...before ACA what exactly was the deal with the uninsured? Lets say they went to a doctor or hopsital, some were turned away I'm sure, but was it up to the doctor? I also once heard that it was illegal to be denied care, at least basic, even if you couldn't pay. That could be flat out wrong IDK


You could be thinking of EMTALA.

People who can't pay get treated, the hospital "eats" the cost, but in reality passes it on to the rest of us.

So we're "forced" to pay for these poor bums anyway.  Wink
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: September 03 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5251
Post Options Post Options   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 09:25
Damn, the foregoing discussion is going to make me sound extreme right when I say what I am going to, but....death is a fact of life, period.   We can go this far and no further in fighting it.   The idea of universal healthcare is admirable and noble but please understand that the money is going from your pocket, govt doesn't have a magic wand.  When they tell you they are making it affordable for you, they are only sort of booking it as deferred revenue, in accounting parlance, making you pay for it in future, via inflation.   Now is a good time in that sense to introduce such a bill because inflation in USA is very low but the eventual effect cannot be anything  but, I think, inflationary.   The only possible situation in which I would support such a system would be if the cost of healthcare doesn't become a fresh excuse for running a bigger deficit.  Give all the entitlements you want to win your elections, but please also balance the budget.

I'd much rather govts tried to kick those overgrown pharma MNCs in the b*** and stop them from evergreening their patents into eternity.   As much as their efforts to advance healthcare are appreciated, they cannot be recovering the cost of that through extending the patent of old drugs, which I believe they do.   That alone should help bring the cost of drugs to a saner level.   That may mean some of them get out of the drug business because it is 'unviable' and some potential, expensive research to develop cures may not be undertaken.  Which brings me back to the first para.   Life expectancy has already gone up tremendously in the last century or so.   If we really want healthcare that will keep us alive for eternity, we should pay for it from our own pocket rather than conveniently pass the burden to future generations.  Oh, and by the way, govts won't do anything to those MNCs because that is the elephant in the room.  It is easier for govts to get a buy in on populist legislations than to tackle difficult issues of principle.


Edited by rogerthat - October 04 2013 at 09:26
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32954
Post Options Post Options   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 11:47
Originally posted by Padraic

Originally posted by JJLehto

Maybe someone can enlighten me...before ACA what exactly was the deal with the uninsured? Lets say they went to a doctor or hopsital, some were turned away I'm sure, but was it up to the doctor? I also once heard that it was illegal to be denied care, at least basic, even if you couldn't pay. That could be flat out wrong IDK


You could be thinking of EMTALA.

People who can't pay get treated, the hospital "eats" the cost, but in reality passes it on to the rest of us.

So we're "forced" to pay for these poor bums anyway.  Wink
Ah but that was my point!
I get the sentiment of people not wanting to do so, but they blast universal coverage as "paying for bums" but I thoght this already was the case, which as you say yes, it is.
 
 
Hey Roger, no one can deny that (though who knows, maybe some progressives think one day we can defeat death!LOL). To quote Dr Cox from Scrubs "We are here to delay the inevitable" and "we keep people alive for a few years longer before they die"
Pretty bleak from a comedy show but ya know, it is kind of a harsh truth. Doesn't mean we should halt medicine and let people dieLOL but basically we can keep people alive longer, but how? I cant think of how to put it...we live longer but how much of it is "good" living or basically just reliant on technologies? Id imagine the only way to boost longer quality living is by living a life of good habits. I think it kind of goes along with what your saying?
The painful question being how much of this extending life should be done at who's cost?
 
IDK, it may be one of the most complex issues out there.
 


Edited by JJLehto - October 04 2013 at 11:58
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Jersey, US
Online Status: Online
Posts: 32954
Post Options Post Options   Quote JJLehto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2013 at 12:05
Originally posted by dr wu23

Originally posted by JJLehto

Originally posted by Epignosis

All of the ideas presented assume that healthcare is inherently expensive.  I contend that it need not be.
 
It's possible, could you elaborate why?
By studying a history of healthcare, it certainly seems to be inherently expensive. Driven by technology.
 
Before the 1920s hopsitals were places to die. Then things got better, and they got more expensive. I believe many Americans couldn't really afford it, thus various insurance plans/blue cross orgs/communal groups and etc started popping up. Can't really say this is due to gov intervention since there wasn't any.
 
Yes, gov has made things worse by creating the tax incentives for businesses (which should be ended) and creating HMOs and all types of laws and sh*t, this cant be denied. Ending employer provided insurance would open up competition and help business, I feel this is necessary (and Im not sure ACA will accomplish it). Should a universal health plan thus pick up the slack or leave it solely to markets? I just feel too many would be unable to afford it with the latter.
 
I mean, when my mother had a major surgery and hopstial stay, it took 2 or 3 years for us to finally get back to normal financially from that. This was WITH insurance paying 80% of it. Sure, gov has made things worse, but I can't believe it's not inherently expensive.
 
I agree and I'd also like to hear how costs can be lowered by using a 'free market system'. Ain't gonna happen.
Pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and doctors have some of the highest fees out there and that has steadily gone up the way it currently is. They will not police themselves and help make healthcare more affordable nor help provide it for those who don't even have it  since they like the big bucks. If some govt regulation or something similar doesn't step in to help those who need healthcare it will only get worse. The ACA might not be a good answer but leaving it the way it is, the GOP answer, will make it even worse in time.
 
Well I will admit, in the US the healthcare market is as free as...eh I dont have any cute word play, but it's quite unfree. Most states are dominated by a few providers, employer offered insurance gives a few choices etc etc
So its not fair to call it a free market, thing is IDK why it's this way. Some claim "that'll happen w/out gov!" others say "that'll happen w/ gov tinkering" so who knows? LOL  If we could free up, or force, competition it'd be good
"It's fine, luckily we're all English so no one will ask any questions. Thank you centuries of emotional repression."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 254255256257258 280>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.811 seconds.