No job, no insurance, has brain tumor

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
What you can pay, and what the market can pay don't have to be the same thing. Sorry, you do not get to make people your slave because you think they aren't worth, or don't deserve what they charge, you are free to haggle with them.
1. Any haggling is already assumed in the cost. Whatever X is has either been determined enough or not enough.

2. What the market can and will pay is what I've been talking about. Very few people can get by by only serving a single customer; and every person generally needs a multitude of products and services. What someone will pay is not, "what Joe around the corner that works in the Deli," will pay, but what some aggregate may pay.

If that amount isn't enough, then it is your place to spend less, or lower prices to gain a wider market; not their responsibility to pay you more because you think you deserve it for having gone to a specialized school to get a specialized skill set.

The aggregate of the market, usually local, is all that matters. Some people are going to go without or cheap out. Some can't pay. Some don't value certain skills enough. And so on. However, any such fringes don't prevent someone from working for someone else, or working for themselves, for some amount of pay. But what that aggregate is willing to pay is all you deserve; and once again, that's simply not profit. In other words, and the way it's normally phrased, again, it is, "what the market will bear." You deserve no more than that; and whether that amounts to profit or not is irrelevant to those paying it.

3. What's with the slavery crap? Is that just to be inflammatory? If someone has in their mind that they should be worth more than they are, it is not enslaving them to only offer what they're actually worth. Offering less may be insulting, but that's still nothing remotely close to slavery.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Exactly. But, likewise, if an MD wants to make more money than any hospital around is willing to pay, he makes none. If he goes into business himself and charges too much, he'll go out of business. And, if he spends more than he makes, regardless of how much that is, he is in a state far from profiting, and does not deserve more money because of it.

The argument is over semantics. However you define the philosophy of compensation, if the individual does not receive a reward from his or her perspective sufficient to compensate for the effort and expense the job goes away. Whether he deserves it is immaterial. Circumstances and events dictate actions independent of grammatical construction.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
The argument is over semantics. However you define the philosophy of compensation, if the individual does not receive a reward from his or her perspective sufficient to compensate for the effort and expense the job goes away. Whether he deserves it is immaterial. Circumstances and events dictate actions independent of grammatical construction.
Agreed. Which is why the very first reply was arguing that no one deserves to profit.

1. "Healthcare for profit LOL"
2. "Those among us that choose to pay for, and attend specialized schools for years to learn specialized skills deserve to make a profit, no matter your emotional whinings."
3. "No, you don't deserve profit. Profit is decoupled from your personal pay."
...and on it has gone. Downhill, and still more civilized than the good old usenet days.

It is important that profit is not deserved, because the original, rather snarky, reply, I thought was clearly pointing out the absurdity of the for-profit health system we have, which is in disarray. Fixing that would, except in a few odd and unlikely ways, not make doctors volunteers or anything of the sort, even if it was forced to become a not-for-profit system, because the doctor's pay, his own left over money, his own investments, and all those of the hospital's (or other health care providing entity), are largely decoupled. Except for MBAs, maybe, most professionals' worth is not based on profit, nor is it anyone's responsibility to guarantee any to them.
 
Last edited:

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
yes. Besides, 800/month is cheaper than tens of thousands. At the very least, you could ask family for help paying the insurance.

lol lol lol yea sure you could. ok skippy lets bump it up a notch, your boss is going to call you into his office in the next 30 min to fire you.

now you have no income. can you still afford 800 bucks a month?

oh and asking my family to help with a 800 dollar monthly bill would have better luck getting blood out of a rock. they can barely pay their own bills.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
What does what I have said have to do with a "perfect" world? It sounds like he had health insurance, didnt utilize it to catch this deadly diesease earlier, and now we are too feel guilty for his poor decisions? Is it tragic? Sure, but possibly preventable if he saw a doctor while employed.

hands down the most IGNORANT posting in this entire thread.

please tell us how going to the doc would prevent him from getting brain cancer??? I just had my physical last week, i seem to remember a jelly coated finger up my ass checking for prostate but i really can not remember a jelly coated finger up my nose or in my ear looking for brain tumors....
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
yes. Besides, 800/month is cheaper than tens of thousands. At the very least, you could ask family for help paying the insurance.

AT LEAST 55% of the population can't. They make less than $30k/yr and those kinds of prices are a mathematical impossibility, especially given the false inflation of real estate prices, food prices, utility prices, etc. Their families probably make about the same as they do. MOST jobs no longer pay anything close to a living wage, and there aren't enough to allow multiple jobs per person.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
You inability to pay doesn't determine someone else's worth, or what they deserve.

No, but the broad inability to receive what you claim to be worth is generally an indicator that your opinion of your worth is skewed. In other words I can claim to be worth $200/hr, but if no one will ever pay me that then its me whose wrong, not them.
 

tgferg67

Member
Oct 23, 2002
118
4
81
What does what I have said have to do with a "perfect" world? It sounds like he had health insurance, didnt utilize it to catch this deadly diesease earlier, and now we are too feel guilty for his poor decisions? Is it tragic? Sure, but possibly preventable if he saw a doctor while employed.

Perfect world - in the meaning that you think when there are symptoms present for any health problem a trip to the doctor gets an immediate diagnosis. It is not uncommon for for brain cancer to be diagnosed 1-2 years after you first start seeing doctors. And there are many diseases which will cause you not to be able to work but yet the average diagnosis time from onset of symptoms is years. If you are the unlucky one, you lose your job and insurance only to find out why you lost everything years later when you get a diagnosis.
 
Last edited:

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
This is the world the Republicans want. They want the "free market" to be a natural death panel. Why should society save this guy? It's not some rich guy's responsibility to pay for his brain tumor and fixing it is not free, no matter what country you go to.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
They provide NOTHING. They shift funds around while siphoning off them and create a false potentiality which drives up prices in a self-rewarding vicious cycle.

So lets ban all insurance then.

Life insurance, car insurance, home insurance, etc. They all provide nothing :hmm:
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,227
36
91
Coming from someone who backs a party full of fascists, racists, homophobes, misogynists, and sociopaths, thats TEH COMADY GOLD!!! LLLOOLLLL!!!

Are you talking about all the racist and homophobic (D) base members that vote against things like same-sex marriage?

Like all the (D) pastors the denounced Obama's switch on the subject?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
So lets ban all insurance then.

Life insurance, car insurance, home insurance, etc. They all provide nothing :hmm:

Totally, my dad could have easily replaced his house and everything in it when it caught fire, no problem.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Are you talking about all the racist and homophobic (D) base members that vote against things like same-sex marriage?

Like all the (D) pastors the denounced Obama's switch on the subject?

No, they are all good it's only if they have (R) in front. That toad Joking106 and several other's here are the absolute definition of hypocrite.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
Why isnt there a safety net for people who make more then what medicaid allows, but can not afford to buy health insurance?

Because truly these people simply choose not to budget health insurance.

Since I was on my own I paid for my own health insurance. In 1990 when my car payment on my 1988 Mustang GT was $225, I was paying $125-175 for BCBS coverage. I worked three jobs since I was a college student. I had my M-F 12-5, a sometimes Thursday, Friday, Sat, Sun delivery job and a weekend / M-F part time job.

Still got my workouts and sex time in.

People want handouts today.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
So lets ban all insurance then.

Life insurance, car insurance, home insurance, etc. They all provide nothing :hmm:

I agree completely, and have been advocating for such for the last ~10 years.

Ok, actually they provide a false sense and temporary security when extremely well regulated, but allowed any free rein they are an unimaginable destructive force...as we're now seeing.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Totally, my dad could have easily replaced his house and everything in it when it caught fire, no problem.

Insurance didn't replace his house, his neighbors did. I did. The guy across the country did. Thing is, we didn't have a choice. Systemic programs FORCED the extortion of our money so that he could have his useless, consumerist shit replaced. Now, I'm sorry he had a fire...I've had family lose everything so I realize it sucks. If he'd ASKED me I would have helped him rebuild. He had NO RIGHT to take my money however. Or to be more clear, the government and private agencies had no right to conspire to funnel my money through private, for profit corporations in order to present the illusion it was for him while becoming wealthy off the works of others.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
They provide NOTHING. They shift funds around while siphoning off them and create a false potentiality which drives up prices in a self-rewarding vicious cycle.
I don't think you understand insurance. Insurance companies provide security against a big loss in return for regular small losses. That's a valuable service. It only gets stupid when we use insurance for things we KNOW we're going to spend, like regular day-to-day health care expenses. In that case, we pay the cost of services plus the cost of the insurance company, but so far that's limited to health insurance. We don't for example demand that home insurance cover our real estate taxes or automobile insurance cover oil changes - although I'm sure that's coming. People aren't getting any smarter.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
I agree completely, and have been advocating for such for the last ~10 years.

Ok, actually they provide a false sense and temporary security when extremely well regulated, but allowed any free rein they are an unimaginable destructive force...as we're now seeing.

Lol, people complaining like this were not properly insured.

Without insurance, who is going to put you back together when your mouth writes checks you can't cash?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I don't think you understand insurance. Insurance companies provide security against a big loss in return for regular small losses. That's a valuable service. It only gets stupid when we use insurance for things we KNOW we're going to spend, like regular day-to-day health care expenses. In that case, we pay the cost of services plus the cost of the insurance company, but so far that's limited to health insurance. We don't for example demand that home insurance cover our real estate taxes or automobile insurance cover oil changes - although I'm sure that's coming. People aren't getting any smarter.

You mean like for instance contraception ;)
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81

I like the concept of insurance. So you are saying the good old government should cover everyone's losses from property to health? What if they put a value lower than I like, would I still be able to buy supplemental insurance or are we going to bank on everyone having an equal amount and value of belongings?

What are then the rules I must abide by to protect my belongings or am I ok just leaving my doors unlocked and keys in the car when I want government-funded upgrades?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I like the concept of insurance. So you are saying the good old government should cover everyone's losses from property to health? What if they put a value lower than I like, would I still be able to buy supplemental insurance or are we going to bank on everyone having an equal amount and value of belongings?

What are then the rules I must abide by to protect my belongings or am I ok just leaving my doors unlocked and keys in the car when I want government-funded upgrades?

Given that Democrats think that people have a right to health care no matter what.... it seems like you would be able to do whatever you want to your car or house and expect the government to provide you a new one if something happened to it. (Say you found out that launching fireworks into the gasoline stored in your garage was a bad idea :D)
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Yeah, there's absolutely no difference between crashing my car and developing brain cancer. None at all.