ganja girl
New Member
I just decided to ignore your lame posts.
Is healthcare a right?
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
ganja girl
New Member
If I get your post right, then I might actually agree with you. We have very few choices and the government dictates more and more each day.
And healthcare is one more choice denied.
abe23
Active Member
That would be fine if your "choice" not to get health insurance coverage wouldn't mean that the rest of us end up picking up the tab if you go to the emergency room and can't pay the bills. ERs are required by law to provide you with emergency services regardless of your insurance status, so this "choice" does drive up everyone else's insurance premium. If you want to advocate for ERs putting people out on the sidewalk, then you might have a coherent argument, but I doubt you will find much support for that...
And your rhetoric about the government dictating your choices is just that...rhetoric. Do you have any concrete examples of how government has restricted your choices recently? They have restricted the 'choice' of credit card companies to screw over their customers, this is true. Paying your female employees less than males for the same work is also not really a 'choice' anymore, true. How about the 'choice' of the financial industry to tie your retirement fund to some deadbeat's mortgage and cause the financial system to nearly melt down in the process, all while relying on taxpayers to get bailed out? Should that be a choice too?
Good, you just keep right on doing that, unless I managed to crack the concrete and you're actually willing to listen and not see what you want to see. Why was this thread started again, if we all have our "opinions" and that's that? I guess I should have seen it coming, the OP was such a loaded ridiculous statement.
I can guarantee a person who gets the shit kicked out of them by the police for no reason will see police brutality as a serious issue, though most Americans don't.
I think I pretty well answered the question with my first post anyway. If it's something we have to provide to POWs and convicts we keep locked up, then obviously it is a right. But whaaa?!?!? THAT'S SOCIALISM har da har da dee da har.
No, it's not.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone speaking on behalf of communism or socialism are advocating for absolute government control nor a military state. The goal is more to help people who need it to strive for the best of themselves.
There are tens of millions who have a free ride in the current economy, even more who have so much that it isn't even reasonable to possess that level of power, all the while the cost of living keeps rising as the absurd financial markets fluctuate so freely that prices in the rest of the market are fairly unpredictable. Prices could rise overnight if enough people lose faith in the dollar. If only one fifth, generously, of the market wants their money the economy would crumble. If the Saudi's want their money the economy would crumble. Their are 4 quadrillion dollars in derivative market shares, and more silver certificates than silver exists in the world(while 95% of mined silver has been used and is unrecoverable). War started for profit, and this has been the case since the first wars, all of it for profit. Dead peasant policies where a corp. insures the life of an employee, the corp benefitting if the employee dies.
Shit is fucked up you best believe it. I think we are advocating absolute freedom. But a freedom that relies on close community, and a high functioning trade function in order to retain communal anonymity as well as prosperous conditions. In order to do this, the greed money inspires needs to be controlled. So the only functional changes would be to remove money from the entire world and allow free trade, or to monitor how much each person takes very closely in order to retain order.
Although this system works well, it can't work with a functioning democracy without immense regulation and with immense regulation it becomes enormously expensive to actually regulate the system. Then in order to cut down costs the government sees to making more regulation and enforcing more heavily. As you know drug regulation are mostly put in place by corporation in the name of retaining power. Pharmaceutical, agriculture, paper, fuel all stand to lose a large chunk of the market if hemp and pot become legal. We have seen what Cheney-Halliburton has done in the name of war and oil drilling(hydraulic fracturing, deep sea, ect.). FDA regulation positions have been usurped by corporate cronies and actual testing requirements have diminished to extremely low numbers.
I dont really care what we do, so long as I can do what I do and we can regulate these shitty leaders. Maybe a counsel of unpaid intellects that test and grill the potential politicians to make sure their heads and hearts are in the right places, like the ancient greeks, the Sophistry Counsel.
Peace
EDIT: But having no enforcement would mean having companies like exxon and private enforcement polluting the environment and jailing people on biased and other prejudices or just simply to save the face of the company.
To have no state can't work in money exists, to have only state can't work if no freedom exists. I would advocate as said before no state and no money and no private property and no authority, except the authority of the logical majority.
There are tens of millions who have a free ride in the current economy, even more who have so much that it isn't even reasonable to possess that level of power, all the while the cost of living keeps rising as the absurd financial markets fluctuate so freely that prices in the rest of the market are fairly unpredictable. Prices could rise overnight if enough people lose faith in the dollar. If only one fifth, generously, of the market wants their money the economy would crumble. If the Saudi's want their money the economy would crumble. Their are 4 quadrillion dollars in derivative market shares, and more silver certificates than silver exists in the world(while 95% of mined silver has been used and is unrecoverable). War started for profit, and this has been the case since the first wars, all of it for profit. Dead peasant policies where a corp. insures the life of an employee, the corp benefitting if the employee dies.
Shit is fucked up you best believe it. I think we are advocating absolute freedom. But a freedom that relies on close community, and a high functioning trade function in order to retain communal anonymity as well as prosperous conditions. In order to do this, the greed money inspires needs to be controlled. So the only functional changes would be to remove money from the entire world and allow free trade, or to monitor how much each person takes very closely in order to retain order.
Although this system works well, it can't work with a functioning democracy without immense regulation and with immense regulation it becomes enormously expensive to actually regulate the system. Then in order to cut down costs the government sees to making more regulation and enforcing more heavily. As you know drug regulation are mostly put in place by corporation in the name of retaining power. Pharmaceutical, agriculture, paper, fuel all stand to lose a large chunk of the market if hemp and pot become legal. We have seen what Cheney-Halliburton has done in the name of war and oil drilling(hydraulic fracturing, deep sea, ect.). FDA regulation positions have been usurped by corporate cronies and actual testing requirements have diminished to extremely low numbers.
I dont really care what we do, so long as I can do what I do and we can regulate these shitty leaders. Maybe a counsel of unpaid intellects that test and grill the potential politicians to make sure their heads and hearts are in the right places, like the ancient greeks, the Sophistry Counsel.
Peace
EDIT: But having no enforcement would mean having companies like exxon and private enforcement polluting the environment and jailing people on biased and other prejudices or just simply to save the face of the company.
To have no state can't work in money exists, to have only state can't work if no freedom exists. I would advocate as said before no state and no money and no private property and no authority, except the authority of the logical majority.
ganja girl
New Member
Please look at post #140. You are trying to put words in my mouth that I never said.
As for my choice that was restricted- where I live decided that I MUST hook up to their water system and can no longer use my well-there is no contamination. They just want money. It cost $10k to hook up. Luckily I can afford it.
From the way you are venting your spleen I surmise that you put your money into those accounts that funded those losers. I never allowed the government to control my money. No IRA's or 401's to steal. Just nice (what I believe are secure) investments.
And for your final questions- If you don't like it vote them out. I am.
BTW-I have health insurance to the tune of $1,400/month.
As for my choice that was restricted- where I live decided that I MUST hook up to their water system and can no longer use my well-there is no contamination. They just want money. It cost $10k to hook up. Luckily I can afford it.
From the way you are venting your spleen I surmise that you put your money into those accounts that funded those losers. I never allowed the government to control my money. No IRA's or 401's to steal. Just nice (what I believe are secure) investments.
And for your final questions- If you don't like it vote them out. I am.
BTW-I have health insurance to the tune of $1,400/month.
ganja girl
New Member
Yes, it is. Forcing anyone to pay for someone else is socialism.
I give because I want to not because I have to and that has been the American way for a long time. People like you generally don't give anything, not even your time. Just recently I donated my time, $, and food to a 9/11 fund raiser. In October my church will be having a shoe, coat, hat and gloves give away to school children in my community and I will be there, again. What about you?
I made my money the hard way working for it for many long hard hours. Self-employed so there were no safety nets to catch me and I made it. And now they want me to share it with those that didn't even come close to putting in the hours, the sweat and the heartache that I did so I could have a secure future. People who truly need is different than those that just want.
Yes, the thread is provocative. It allows people to see how others think, even if you don't like it.
I give because I want to not because I have to and that has been the American way for a long time. People like you generally don't give anything, not even your time. Just recently I donated my time, $, and food to a 9/11 fund raiser. In October my church will be having a shoe, coat, hat and gloves give away to school children in my community and I will be there, again. What about you?
I made my money the hard way working for it for many long hard hours. Self-employed so there were no safety nets to catch me and I made it. And now they want me to share it with those that didn't even come close to putting in the hours, the sweat and the heartache that I did so I could have a secure future. People who truly need is different than those that just want.
Yes, the thread is provocative. It allows people to see how others think, even if you don't like it.
abe23
Active Member
I'm a bit puzzled by what you're saying, honestly...
You're example is a pretty good case study of why there needs to be universal coverage. I don't know how her doctor "worked the system", but if there was no insurance coverage from BC, the money must have come from somewhere else. Medicare maybe? So because this woman made a "choice" not to get covered by the companies policy, somebody else ended up footing the bill. This is the status quo you would like to see maintained? I don't get it. Even more puzzling is your statement about possibility of blue cross coverage AFTER her diagnosis. Generally, if you have a tumor, going without treatment for 12 months is a pretty serious problem. Here's another interesting bit of information. If she had opted for the BC plan when you offered, some employee there would have gone over all her paperwork to see if there was ANY pretext that could be used to drop her coverage in order not to pay her bills, like failing to mention a history of breast cancer in her family or some other administrative BS. That's illegal now thanks to this law.
Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying, but mandating health insurance is not really a matter of restricting choice.
And local ordinances about water supply have little to do with any of this. Also, yes I'm pissed off about the financial meltdown, but not because I lost money. It's more the idea that a bunch of degenerate gamblers were able to tank the economy that bothers me...
You're example is a pretty good case study of why there needs to be universal coverage. I don't know how her doctor "worked the system", but if there was no insurance coverage from BC, the money must have come from somewhere else. Medicare maybe? So because this woman made a "choice" not to get covered by the companies policy, somebody else ended up footing the bill. This is the status quo you would like to see maintained? I don't get it. Even more puzzling is your statement about possibility of blue cross coverage AFTER her diagnosis. Generally, if you have a tumor, going without treatment for 12 months is a pretty serious problem. Here's another interesting bit of information. If she had opted for the BC plan when you offered, some employee there would have gone over all her paperwork to see if there was ANY pretext that could be used to drop her coverage in order not to pay her bills, like failing to mention a history of breast cancer in her family or some other administrative BS. That's illegal now thanks to this law.
Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying, but mandating health insurance is not really a matter of restricting choice.
And local ordinances about water supply have little to do with any of this. Also, yes I'm pissed off about the financial meltdown, but not because I lost money. It's more the idea that a bunch of degenerate gamblers were able to tank the economy that bothers me...
abe23
Active Member
How would that have worked out for you if you had gotten seriously ill or injured during that time...? I'm glad to hear that it all worked out for you, but for a lot of americans it hasn't. They got sick, couldn't pay their bills and end up losing everything they had worked for. It's hard to build a secure future under those circumstances...
CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
I have read this entire post several times. I fail to see what it is that I am not understanding. Let me zero in on a few key points:
Health care for POW and inmates- The State decides to incarcerate. The inmate becomes a WARD of the state. It becomes the state's duty to look after their NEEDS.
Social Mobility is not what you say it is. Social mobility is an individuals ability to change his income up and down the social hierarchy, (like when you work a crap job for crap pay and have the option of quitting, going to school and landing a great job that gets you out of the trailer park). In contrast with your definition that social mobility is "the ability of the next generation to have it better than the last". What you are defining is "inter-generational mobility"(like when you don't have to worry about not knowing where your kids are because this generation has cell phones whereas the last generation did not). I did not address this because I did not want to sound condescending. And it is counter productive for me to become the semantics nazi. For the record, I think we enjoy excellent mobility in this country. If you'd like to research the terminology you are using to the point you understand it correctly, perhaps make some citations that are a little more real than "We're not even close to #1. I believe we're 10th or 11th or something" You might bait me into providing some data of my own.
Capital is not money. Capital in economic terms are human made ingredients used to produce goods and services. Again, I did not want to sound condescending by addressing your misunderstanding here, it is common. I knew what you were talking about, and left it alone.
We do not have wage slavery in this country. We have a bunch of workers, (suppliers of labor) who do not understand that they can demand higher pay. I think that what we have right now (9.6% unemployment that is really more like 30%) is 30% of the work force realizing that they are NOT slaves; that they DO have a choice to sell their labor at a higher price. The reason the gov't says it is only 9.6% is because they don't want the other 70% to realize that there is already a wage revolution among workers that is underway. Which I think kicks ass.
"Practically all of the wealth transfer in this country anymore happens that way." No, ALL wealth transfer happens this way! Transfer payments- payments that no good or service is exchanged (SSI, welfare, unemployment)
Once again, I knew what you meant. And I agreed. No need to argue over an agreement.
I don't think Health care is a right. I don't think that providing health care for all could be good for the economy. I don't think it is right, I think it sucks that it is that way. I have said as much, and I have provided some of the most compelling data on this thread to support why I think it is that way. What am I missing?
ganja girl
New Member
No, I don't believe it is a case for universal healthcare. She had the option for paid healthcare already and opted out! I think it was you who mentioned abuse of the system, Medicare is already abused to the tune of $60 billion in 2009. Imagine the abuse with this.
I do believe that there should be healthcare coverage for those who can not take care of themselves, be it, through clinics, hospitals, or government. But, not for those that can have coverage and don't opt for coverage. She took what she believed was a educated guess and she lost. She opted for a new car instead of healthcare. Why should you or I pay for that? That being said I am glad she received care, no one should suffer. No, she did not qualify for medicare, I believe she received care through the compassion funds at the hospital.
In my state BC can not deny you coverage because they are a non-profit. But, they do have the right to deny coverage for any pre-existing condition for the first 12 months. And it was that way before the law.
Yes, it is restricting choice. The choice to say no. We are all free to make good or poor choices and we pay for those choices because we are free.
BTW, I'm pissed off too. I am so glad I'm not in business now, small business is going to get creamed over healthcare.
Oh yeah, the point about the water system is that government can and will control whatever they can. If you had followed the post I was responding to you would have understood.
But, if you want to keep it on medicine than let's talk Avastin. The FDA is close to denying it for breast cancer. Why, because it is expensive. Isn't the FDA supposed to determine drug safety and not deny a drug on cost? This will only get worse as this program increases in expense. Avastin for breast cancer expensive, but for Macular degeneration is is only $275.
I am not upset just giving you MHO.
I do believe that there should be healthcare coverage for those who can not take care of themselves, be it, through clinics, hospitals, or government. But, not for those that can have coverage and don't opt for coverage. She took what she believed was a educated guess and she lost. She opted for a new car instead of healthcare. Why should you or I pay for that? That being said I am glad she received care, no one should suffer. No, she did not qualify for medicare, I believe she received care through the compassion funds at the hospital.
In my state BC can not deny you coverage because they are a non-profit. But, they do have the right to deny coverage for any pre-existing condition for the first 12 months. And it was that way before the law.
Yes, it is restricting choice. The choice to say no. We are all free to make good or poor choices and we pay for those choices because we are free.
BTW, I'm pissed off too. I am so glad I'm not in business now, small business is going to get creamed over healthcare.
Oh yeah, the point about the water system is that government can and will control whatever they can. If you had followed the post I was responding to you would have understood.
But, if you want to keep it on medicine than let's talk Avastin. The FDA is close to denying it for breast cancer. Why, because it is expensive. Isn't the FDA supposed to determine drug safety and not deny a drug on cost? This will only get worse as this program increases in expense. Avastin for breast cancer expensive, but for Macular degeneration is is only $275.
I am not upset just giving you MHO.
PricewaterhouseCoopers is considered a "small business" in politician-speak.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gop-bechtel-pricewaterhousecoopers-and-other-small-businesses-will-see-tax-hike-charts.php
It's like billion dollar companies they're talking about, PricewaterhouseCoopers is over $2 billion in profit a year. This article doesn't do justice to just exactly how ridiculous the whole "small business" argument is.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gop-bechtel-pricewaterhousecoopers-and-other-small-businesses-will-see-tax-hike-charts.php
It's like billion dollar companies they're talking about, PricewaterhouseCoopers is over $2 billion in profit a year. This article doesn't do justice to just exactly how ridiculous the whole "small business" argument is.
I was talking about inheritance, first off.
CaRNiFReeK
Well-Known Member
Yawn... I am getting tired of offering paragraph after paragraph of well thought out discourse, just for you to offer a one-line rebuttal on points that have already been made. I appreciate that you think I don't understand. You have made that claim several times. What you have failed to do is explain why.
abe23
Active Member
I like this conversation because you're both knowledgeable about the subject and civil, so thanks for that...
Here's my point. Your colleague decided to go without medical coverage. She got sick and required treatment. As a result, she received treatment on compassionate grounds from funds that could have gone to someone who actually needed it. This isn't a nanny state thing about how her choices are bad for her individually. It's about how that sort of behavior bleeds money out of the system and ultimately ends up costing you or me when we visit the ER or pay our monthly premiums. As you yourself acknowledge, nobody should be left suffer unnecessarily, so just letting people croak because they don't have coverage is not an option. This is why some sort of mandate is necessary, whether it be on individuals or employers. I hate the idea as much as you, frankly, but I don't see an alternative that's both humane and isn't going to bankrupt us. What is the lesson you draw from the woman's story if you don't mind me asking? That some people are irresponsible and you shouldn't be asked to pay for it? Because in that case the status quo is a major fail...somebody DID pay for her irresponsibility. Again, to me, your story is an excellent example of why we do need universal coverage, through individual mandates if necessary. You don't have the choice to say no to auto insurance because when you do, you could potentially end up costing other people money. And unless we just tell people 'tough shit' when they get cancer and don't have insurance, then the same thing applies to healthcare.
As for avastin, the reason the FDA is considering dropping it's approval for it as a cancer treatment has little to do with cost and a lot to do with the fact that it doesn't really do much for patients. The FDA does have a mandate to look into the effectiveness of drugs, not just their safety. Otherwise you could market extremely safe sugar pills as a treatment for AIDS...
Your state obviously has tighter restrictions on healthcare insurers than most. Earlier you made a point about being able to purchase coverage across state lines. If that happened, you wouldn't have any of those protections because all the insurance companies would move to texas, north dakota or whoever has the laxest regulation. This is how the credit card industry operates...
And small businesses actually get a pretty good deal if they want to provide coverage to their employees and are exempt from a lot of the mandates placed on larger business. It does mostly suck for the wal-marts et al. of the world, i will give you that.
I understood what you meant with your water supply story, but local government isn't really what we are talking about here. But ok, point taken.
ganja girl
New Member
This is the first time in American history that a person is MADE to purchase AGAINST their will. There is a big difference between catching people who fall between the cracks and insuring the entire country.
Avastin increases life expectancy by about 1 to 1.5 years. I would say that if it was your life that you would want that time. To me that is an effective drug.
I believe you are wrong about insurers moving to those states. Customers will migrate to good insures and that will change how all insurers operate. The same way that people migrated to Japanese cars when US made cars were inferior. Then US automakers increased quality and people came back-same here. End game consumers are not stupid.
Question-Do you have insurance? What kind? Who pays? Do you have a job? The answers to those will explain a lot.
Avastin increases life expectancy by about 1 to 1.5 years. I would say that if it was your life that you would want that time. To me that is an effective drug.
I believe you are wrong about insurers moving to those states. Customers will migrate to good insures and that will change how all insurers operate. The same way that people migrated to Japanese cars when US made cars were inferior. Then US automakers increased quality and people came back-same here. End game consumers are not stupid.
Question-Do you have insurance? What kind? Who pays? Do you have a job? The answers to those will explain a lot.
bajafox
Well-Known Member
Keep telling the truth ganja girl, it's easy to ask for free shit when people work their asses off to earn it
I would love to stay on unemployment and get free healthcare, I would never want to get back to my $53k desk job with an HMO that cost me thousands more than I ever used
I would love to stay on unemployment and get free healthcare, I would never want to get back to my $53k desk job with an HMO that cost me thousands more than I ever used
abe23
Active Member
-I buy my own insurance individually, but through an exchange my state has set up, so I get a relatively good rate for an individual policy. It's an hmo network type plan where I can only go to certain providers. No complaints though really. Currently, I work as a freelance translator and have a part-time job as an innkeeper. Ok, your turn...
-I don't like the insurance mandate either, but it's the 'least bad' option. Medicare for all or a public option would have been my preference, but politically those weren't possible. Again, the "choice" people make to go without coverage, ends up costing everyone who does have insurance, when those people show up at the ER and can't pay their bill. Unless you get everyone covered or you start turning people away at the ER, that will continue to be the case. You can talk around that all you want...
-The FDA regulatory process has nothing to do with the healthcare bill. The avastin recommendation was based on the clinical issues NOT cost. I know the pharma lobbies and their whores on capitol hill want to turn it into a political issue, but it really isn't. The same thing would have happened before the bill passed...
-Why are all the credit card companies based in south dakota, delaware, utah etc.? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that there are very lax laws regarding usury in those states? The same thing would happen with the health insurance industry. This has nothing do with consumer choice. Even the savviest, smartest consumers can't get a credit card from a company that isn't based in one of these states....because there are none.