Just an Obama question.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
What's sick about allowing people to earn a living? What's sick about allowing people to determine whether or not they want to provide health services to someone?

It seems like you want a slave society where you can force people to serve interests not of their choosing, much the same way slave owners wanted to force their slaves to serve interests not of their choosing.
o_O
So how do you propose we handle costs?
I pay for roads that I don't use, and will almost certainly never use. Should every road be a toll road so we can eliminate this terrible injustice?
I don't have kids, and I'm finished with college, but I still help fund the Department of Education. I pay for the upkeep of national memorials I'll never visit. I pay for bridges I'll never drive over. I pay to help keep water clean which I'll never drink. I pay to have money minted, but I rarely use cash. I pay for government "security" administrations I don't agree with.

How would it work then? Would I pay individually for every little service? I hope one of these new entities will help handle logistics, because there's going to be a need for it.
What if it's a problem on a common area? There's a dead deer in the road, died of natural causes. It's in the way. I don't want to pay the full cost to have it removed though. So who pays? Just people who are driving that way that day? Try to prove who did and didn't go that way, or who did and didn't benefit from the removal.
Oops, paying the government agency to remove roadkill or dead animals from the roadways has just turned me into a slave. Damn.


I don't see why a person's insurance information can't be on file with every hospital in the country. It's not 1800s, you know. I'm sure hospitals can be left to determine who is capable and not capable of paying for medical services.
"I'm sorry, sir, our network database is offline right now. Our IT department is working on the problem, but they say it could be up to an hour before they've finished restoring the backups. I trust that you have a photo ID somewhere on your person?"

Also, who's going to take the initiative and manage all that data? Who's going to write the standards for how the data is formatted and shared? Who's going to determine how to keep it secure? Who's going to determine when it's ok to share it with which people? Who's going to run the servers? Who's going to ensure that the data is properly updated in every hospital across the country? Who's going to pay to keep everyone's interfaces updated? Who's going to do the updating?

Private industry often can't agree on things very well. Betamax or VHS? Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? DVD+RW or DVD-RW or DVD-RAM? CompactFlash, SD, XD, MemoryStick. Look at the machining industry's tooling. Everything's proprietary; you get a toolholder cheap, because it only works with one company's cutters, so you'll buy replacements from them for years to come.
I'm sure there will be no problem getting everyone to agree on a single unified standard for managing the customer data for an industry that's worth many billions of dollars.


Because most Leftists are closet eugenicists, and it was eugenicists (Margaret Sanger and Rockefeller Foundation) who initially created and funded Planned Parenthood.

Leftists love aborted fetuses because they are basically anti-human. They want fewer people on Earth, especially those of the poor and minority class.
Extremist much?



You're really not comparing two control-of-bodies issues here. Abortion choice is a control-of-body issue. Obamacare is really a money/cost/tax issue.

The two would be comparable in the way you suggest if the Democrats passed a law forcing you to actually use healthcare services.

In theory, I agree that nobody should be forced to pay for health insurance. They should decide if they want to pay for it or not, and if they don't pay for it, they should pay out of pocket or go without medical care.

In practice, society doesn't work that way. Many people lack foresight or are unable to make wise choices. Some underestimate the chances of unforeseen circumstances. The truth is that everyone does need medical care at some point, and we as a society are not willing to allow people to die on the hospital steps, so we have laws requiring people to be given care even if they cannot pay. This creates a situation where people have an incentive to free-ride on the system, and to consume medical care in the most expensive way possible. Mandatory healthcare is designed to address this problem.

Note that Romney himself has made this exact argument. That was before he decided it was politically convenient to do a 180 on this issue.

It's really a lot like social security. It was always the case that people who were better off and/or wiser would save for retirement, but some folks would not, or would lose all of their money due to stupidity or bad luck -- and then they'd be screwed. So the government started forcing people to save for retirement, rather than having to deal with either allowing millions of people to live off others' savings, or eat cat food. (The system isn't perfect, of course. Far from it.)
:thumbsup:

And I think it helps society come out ahead, eventually. Yeah, some people plan poorly, and can't properly assess probabilities. Rather, a lot of people do. (Lotteries still exist. Casinos still exist.) I see it as a systemic problem, a chronic one that our species is saddled with. We evolved to handle daily problems, such as not starving, or finding something to have sex with. Long-term planning is something we usually have a problem with. And it often bites us in the ass sometime in the future.

Downside of it biting us in the ass: That can serve to bump society as a whole down a notch. You see someone suffering, and assuming you've got anything in the way of compassion or empathy, you might feel compelled to help them, even if it was their own stupidity that got them there. So now you're paying for their past mistakes. And you may pay in more ways than that: If they didn't plan ahead, they can do much for the economy. If someone else made them invest some money, or someone else forced them to have health insurance, they're more likely to have money, or more likely to be healthy enough to hold a job longer, and therefore they can keep pushing money into the engine of the economy. Theoretically.

With compound interest, an ounce of prevention can be worth a half a ton of a cure. Social Security - it's a forced investment, or at least it could have been, before corrupt government officials kept tapping into it as a reserve bank account, and when they didn't adjust the age limit as the average life expectancy increased. Or health insurance: Try to prevent problems now so that you don't need to pay as much to fix or patch mistakes later on. Yes, it may be a burden in the present, but it could prevent more substantial problems in the future. Many are "I've got mine, Jack, and screw everyone else." Lots of people like to say or think that they're better than animals; you sometimes see the nature films of a zebra getting attacked by a lone lion, while the herd just watches, despite their greater numbers. Yes, let's aspire to that.



</Level 8 Divided Wall of Text>
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If the system is inefficient due to emergency rooms servicing people who can't pay or won't pay, why not pass legislation that allows emergency rooms to turn away people who either can't or won't pay?

A restaurant won't feed you if you come in hungry and can't or won't pay, so why should hospitals?

How dim. People can die while hospitals try to figure out if they have insurance or not. Nor is it like everybody can afford health insurance under the present system, either.

Other than on the right fringe, it's widely viewed as unethical and immoral for medical providers to allow anybody to die who could be treated, anyway.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
How dim. People can die while hospitals try to figure out if they have insurance or not. Nor is it like everybody can afford health insurance under the present system, either.

Other than on the right fringe, it's widely viewed as unethical and immoral for medical providers to allow anybody to die who could be treated, anyway.

It's against the law. I'm a trained first responder and if I'm wearing anything identifying me as such, I'm required to respond and provide help. If not, we're trained there is a moral obligation to help. I'd imagine it's the same for professional responders and doctors.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
It's against the law. I'm a trained first responder and if I'm wearing anything identifying me as such, I'm required to respond and provide help. If not, we're trained there is a moral obligation to help. I'd imagine it's the same for professional responders and doctors.

That's because you live in a decent society.

"Juror No. 8" wants to live in some hypothetical country, let's call it Douchebagia, where medical professionals have no integrity, and someone can be "free" to die in a hospital ER ward because its database says the check for his/her insurance renewal never showed up.

Oversimplification -- so much easier than thinking.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
That's because you live in a decent society.

"Juror No. 8" wants to live in some hypothetical country, let's call it Douchebagia, where medical professionals have no integrity, and someone can be "free" to die in a hospital ER ward because its database says the check for his/her insurance renewal never showed up.

Oversimplification -- so much easier than thinking.

I think "Libertopia" is the realm you're referencing...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It's against the law. I'm a trained first responder and if I'm wearing anything identifying me as such, I'm required to respond and provide help. If not, we're trained there is a moral obligation to help. I'd imagine it's the same for professional responders and doctors.

Of course. There is an ethical basis for the law.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
How dim. People can die while hospitals try to figure out if they have insurance or not.

Right, because they'll have to shuffle through a Rolodex. None of this information could be stored electronically in a national database.

Nor is it like everybody can afford health insurance under the present system, either.

Right, because the government has interfered in the health care system and driven up costs.

Other than on the right fringe, it's widely viewed as unethical and immoral for medical providers to allow anybody to die who could be treated, anyway.

Slavery is also considered unethical and immoral, yet you have no problem with forcing people to pay for the health care of others, up and including using government violence.

You'd own slaves and a cotton farm if you could, wouldn't you?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
A restaurant won't feed you if you come in hungry and can't or won't pay

Most restaurant would in my experience working in kitchens, but not if they are a corporate chain (some KFC will still though)

It's up to whoever is in charge, or if the a uptight boss isn't looking.

We literally scrape enough uneaten food off plates in one weekend in the USA to feed the world. Being selfish is pointless and wasteful.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
That's because you live in a decent society.

LOL, you mean the same society that incarcerates hundreds of thousands of non-violent people for possessing a plant? You mean the same society that bombs, invades, and occupies countries full of brown people on a whim? You mean the same society whose government tested chemical and biological agents on its own citizens without their full, informed consent?

images


Have a nice flight!
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
LOL, you mean the same society that incarcerates hundreds of thousands of non-violent people for possessing a plant? You mean the same society that bombs, invades, and occupies countries full of brown people on a whim? You mean the same society whose government tested chemical and biological agents on its own citizens without their full, informed consent?

images


Have a nice flight!

All in all I think Americans are pretty decent to one another in person. The government is not the American people although in theory it should be run by us, not corporate influence. Which is a big part of the problems you mention about it.

Sure, wouldn't flaunt massive amounts of wealth in some areas at night, but this happens anywhere with rampant poverty.
 
Last edited:

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
If you really wanted to call out Obama on the hypocrisy of letting people control their own bodies, a better parallel would be the increased prosecution of marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized medical marijuana. Buying health care isn't limiting the control of your body; prosecuting people who sell a product that is legal in your jurisdiction is.

I'll second this and CharlesKozierok's excellent response.

I only use coffee and chocolate myself, but consenting adults should be free to smoke, drink or shoot up pretty much anything they want to as long as they pay for it and don't endanger others while they're impaired.

I'm not sure if Obama buying into the failed drug prohibition is payback for donations from Big Booze and Big Tobacco, or pandering to the business of enforcement and incarceration. Who knows, maybe it's personal belief. Regardless, it's hypocritical to support drug prohibition at the same time as you insist on supporting pro-choice.

I guess you could give Romney points for being more consistent in his desire to suppress personal liberty :)
 

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
That's because you live in a decent society.

"Juror No. 8" wants to live in some hypothetical country, let's call it Douchebagia, where medical professionals have no integrity, and someone can be "free" to die in a hospital ER ward because its database says the check for his/her insurance renewal never showed up.

Oversimplification -- so much easier than thinking.

In my early 20s I was infatuated with the idea of a "Libertopia" with a big "L". Looking back at it now I can't believe I was that wingnutty! I like some of the ideals that Libertarians stand for, but taken to extremes you have the people who would smirk and wag their finger at someone dying on the hospital steps...that's a society I'm glad I don't live in.
 

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
All in all I think Americans are pretty decent to one another in person. The government is not the American people although in theory it should be run by us, not corporate influence. Which is a big part of the problems you mention about it.

Sure, wouldn't flaunt massive amounts of wealth in some areas at night, but this happens anywhere with rampant poverty.

Intarweb feces slinging aside, I do agree that when Americans actually have to engage each other in the flesh and actually look at someones eyes in conversation we can be amazing civil ;)
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
All in all I think Americans are pretty decent to one another in person. The government is not the American people although in theory it should be run by us, not corporate influence. Which is a big part of the problems you mention about it.

Sure, wouldn't flaunt massive amounts of wealth in some areas at night, but this happens anywhere with rampant poverty.

Steeple gets it. Though I don't know where people get this magic idea that healthcare needs to be covered else we all be douchebags who let each other die. Pretty sure people need to start taking more action for themselves and stop standing around waiting for the big G in the sky( I mean Government lol) to save them.
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Intarweb feces slinging aside, I do agree that when Americans actually have to engage each other in the flesh and actually look at someones eyes in conversation we can be amazing civil ;)

LOL. Maybe this guy's storm trooper helmet prevented him from actually looking at the eyes of the people he's spraying with chemicals.

UC-Davis.jpg
 

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
LOL. Maybe this guy's storm trooper helmet prevented him from actually looking at the eyes of the people he's spraying with chemicals.

UC-Davis.jpg

Of course you have assholes like that in society but to have that incident = all of civilization is disingenuous.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
82,854
17,365
136
That's because you live in a decent society.

"Juror No. 8" wants to live in some hypothetical country, let's call it Douchebagia, where medical professionals have no integrity, and someone can be "free" to die in a hospital ER ward because its database says the check for his/her insurance renewal never showed up.

Oversimplification -- so much easier than thinking.

Irony, do you see it?
 

Juror No. 8

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
1,108
0
0
Of course you have assholes like that in society but to have that incident = all of civilization is disingenuous.

You'd have a point if that pig was held legally accountable for his actions, and by that I mean, charged with, at the very least, aggravated assault, but that never happened, so you don't have a point.

The society you think is so civilized is a police state, and the people within it, excuse-making sheep.