datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
One, you missed my disclaimer. I didn't say that I was for national health care coverage, just pointing out that $50 is indeed expensive for some people (namely poor college students like me).
I ate only Ramen, and sometimes Ramen with egg, for all of march and most of may. That is how little money I have. I managed to do some work and now am eating better, but still eat Ramen every week.
And I try to save as much as possible. I have a car, but to save money I am just storing it at my parents house. So no gas or insurance payments to give up. I use a ratty old bike.
Internet access is only $10 a month because I live in a house with 5 guys and we split the cost of one connection. And it is neccesary for school anyhow.
The only thing that I could concievably give up would be my cell, but I have a cheap plan and it wouldn't be that much cheaper to get a landline phone. I would have to pay for the whole landline myself because all my roomates have cells.
And I know other people who are in a similar money situation as me. Spending every cent to go to school. If I wasn't covered by my parents medical insurance, I probably wouldn't have any at all.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Tough one...
In principle, I favor universal health care. Can't get the 60 inch TV, and have to settle for the 55? Too bad, someone would live because of the difference.
In practice, the government would run this, and after seeing what they did with HIPAA, I am even more convinced they would screw it up royally. Keep your 60 inch TV for the moment, until someone comes up with a workable plan that isolates health care providers form bureaucracy and politics.
In principle, I favor universal health care. Can't get the 60 inch TV, and have to settle for the 55? Too bad, someone would live because of the difference.
In practice, the government would run this, and after seeing what they did with HIPAA, I am even more convinced they would screw it up royally. Keep your 60 inch TV for the moment, until someone comes up with a workable plan that isolates health care providers form bureaucracy and politics.
Why should the federal government have any kind of control over healthcare? Of course, this statements exclude making sure people don't get ripped off too badly, and care is up to standards.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Why should anyone care if you die horribly of course excluding you do not get ripped off in the process? If it happens to many and just not you, should the government ignore it?
You see, many believe the government should promote the common welfare. Now when people stop taking their medication because they cannot afford it any more, that is grounds for the situation to be looked at. Do I like Uncle Sam being in everything? No, and probably less than you do. However, the time to discuss options (if through government or some other means) is before massive crisis, rather than patching it up when it is too late.
I believe the government should protect us from foreign States and regulate interstate commerce. I think if someone is dying a horrible death and I don't want to help, I should not have to help.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
It's "promote the common welfare," not "provide." There is a tremendous difference.
And please do not quote the Constitution in this setting when you know full well that its authors would have been downright shocked and horrified at the socialistic idea of Universal Health Care.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." - Sir Alexander Tytler
edit: BBD, you still missed my entire point, and your long-winded segues lambasting me for whatever you think I was talking about are boring. Don't you have some pills to peddle?
Five Functions of Government
Yes this site has a definitive religious flavor but it's the best I could find on short notice.
The chief author of the American Constitution, and justly called its "Father," was a Christian statesman, James Madison. (He would also become the fourth U.S. president.) That the Constitution was the product of Christianity, and of its ideas of man and government, is revealed by the biblical functions of government that Madison listed in its preamble:
1. To establish justice - This is the goal of the passages in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:14, which say that government is to punish evildoers and protect those who do right.
2. To insure domestic tranquility - This phrase comes from the focus of prayer for government, which Paul urged in 1 Timothy 2:1-2. The New American Standard Bible says to pray for government "in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."
3. To provide for the common defense - The protection of innocent human life is at the base of not only capital punishment (Genesis 9:6), but also in the provision of an army for protection from external threats.
4. To promote the general welfare - Romans 13:4 says that civil rulers are servants "to you for good." The common good of all classes of citizens must be promoted by government passage of laws guaranteeing equal opportunity. It is not proper for government to provide money and aid to special interest groups. It is to promote, not provide, and to do so for all people in general, not for special people.
5. To secure the blessings of liberty - Blessing are a gift of one's Creator, not a privilege granted by government. These blessings include life, liberty, and property. A biblical view of government sees that it cannot provide these, only secure them.
Molly Ivins referenced #4 during the O'Reilly/Franken dust up. In the absence of universal healthcare (considering it is the most expensive service provided in America) or public education (primary means for economic advancement if you are not born wealthy) . . . how can you promote the general welfare? Why would assisting the people in staying healthy and becoming educated not be consistent with a PRIMARY role of government?
Yes this site has a definitive religious flavor but it's the best I could find on short notice.
The chief author of the American Constitution, and justly called its "Father," was a Christian statesman, James Madison. (He would also become the fourth U.S. president.) That the Constitution was the product of Christianity, and of its ideas of man and government, is revealed by the biblical functions of government that Madison listed in its preamble:
1. To establish justice - This is the goal of the passages in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:14, which say that government is to punish evildoers and protect those who do right.
2. To insure domestic tranquility - This phrase comes from the focus of prayer for government, which Paul urged in 1 Timothy 2:1-2. The New American Standard Bible says to pray for government "in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."
3. To provide for the common defense - The protection of innocent human life is at the base of not only capital punishment (Genesis 9:6), but also in the provision of an army for protection from external threats.
4. To promote the general welfare - Romans 13:4 says that civil rulers are servants "to you for good." The common good of all classes of citizens must be promoted by government passage of laws guaranteeing equal opportunity. It is not proper for government to provide money and aid to special interest groups. It is to promote, not provide, and to do so for all people in general, not for special people.
5. To secure the blessings of liberty - Blessing are a gift of one's Creator, not a privilege granted by government. These blessings include life, liberty, and property. A biblical view of government sees that it cannot provide these, only secure them.
Molly Ivins referenced #4 during the O'Reilly/Franken dust up. In the absence of universal healthcare (considering it is the most expensive service provided in America) or public education (primary means for economic advancement if you are not born wealthy) . . . how can you promote the general welfare? Why would assisting the people in staying healthy and becoming educated not be consistent with a PRIMARY role of government?
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
It isn't easy to get one. 7.9 % unemployment in Oregon (something like 12% if you count the people on unemployment I think). I tried to apply to around 40-50 places. Nobody was hireing (and yes, this included a bunch of low end jobs like McDonalds and Burger King).
The definition and quantity of the "assist" is the stumbling block not whether or not it should be done.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Well, let's see... I already have a job and health coverage and am relatively happy with it, so that special interest group wouldn't be me...
Hmm... and health coverage of some type usually comes with most jobs, so almost everyone with a job already has health covergage...
Hey, I know! I bet that special interest group is everyone without a job, which means that that special interest group won't be paying for this "common welfare" thing, but that I (and everyone with a job and who already has health coverage) will. I bet the other side of the special interest group are politicians looking to cater to that unemployed demographic and medical industry professionals looking for the government to subsidize a massive growth and market opening in their field.
Wow... a whole bunch of special interest groups. None of whom are me. But who pays? That's right. <^>
To the ignorant . . . every person that universal healthcare keeps out of the ED increases the likelihood that real emergencies are cared for expediently. Once it is well established, the total federal expenditure for healthcare may be less on a year over year basis . . . you would expect people to live longer and it may be a wash between living longer with chronic disease management and the expense of acute care/end of life care. There's no doubt that waste (private insurance industry) will be greatly reduced.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
and then we'd have the same thing we get every time you have a federal bureaucrat in charge of the project and he'll just wastefully spend the rest of his money on fluff because if he doesnt then his budget gets cut for the next cycle. the people who go to the dr regularly aren't going to benefit. and i bet if you gave health pyramid scheme to people who didn't have it you'd have a) people still not going to the doc until its expensive as hell to fix whatever b) hypochondriacs going for no reason and being prescribed placebos.
you could fix the so-called crisis to most people's satisfaction by figuring out exactly why drugs cost tons less in canada than in the US and by reducing frivolous malpractice lawsuits (assuming of course that once premiums go down docs would lower their rates but i'm not too sure they would)
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Nice con job sale attempt. But that entire post is riddled with out lies and inconsistencies. And please don't call people "ignorant" for refusing to be conned.
For example, people living longer under a universal health care system would not reduce costs but increase them. As it is not a monthly premium system (like traditional health insurance), old and chronically-ill people would no longer pay into the system. They would be a burden. In fact, under a worst-case scenario fiscal crisis, the government may decide that it is better that some people live shorter lives, and you will have given the government that control.
And there is no freakin' chance in hell that the government can take over the health insurance industry, vastly increase the number of people that are covered, and reduce costs. And there is one thing that the government never (absolutely never) does and that is reduce waste. No other government has managed a universal health care system and managed to reduce costs or expenditures. None. Enter the world's biggest and nastiest bureaucracy and you want us put our faith in them?
What do you think makes them roll over in their graves . . . the idea of common welfare (universal healthcare) or King George's wars?
Vacation before starting a research fellowship (federally-funded no less). Your post on the interface between infectious disease and antimicrobials/vaccines was garbage. The notion of 60s research detailing psychiatric morbidity is garbage. I have no way of knowing if you are ignorant or an idiot. The former is excusable b/c nobody knows everything. The latter is more difficult to correct particularly when people have limited capacity for evaluating facts.
You do not pay for your healthcare. Even if it is company provided . . . part of your company's costs are subsidized by the US government. If you ever access more than your premium's worth of care during a calendar year . . . your healthcare has been subsidized by other planholders. When your HMO negotiates reduced rates with providers the cost is shifted to people outside your plan . . . namely the uninsured. Many of the uninsured do attempt to pay their bills . . . it's one of the reasons that healthcare costs are one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy.
On a related note, Robert Samualson's column in today's Washington Post is interesting:
A Costly Freebie
In all the years I've been reading his columns on economic issues, I've yet to figure out his personal political leanings. I'd say he's one of the better op-ed writers discussing economic issues today.
A Costly Freebie
In all the years I've been reading his columns on economic issues, I've yet to figure out his personal political leanings. I'd say he's one of the better op-ed writers discussing economic issues today.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,305
- 136
Universal health care is not "common welfare." It's the government taking from one to give to another. I'm sure they would be equally upset by some of GW's actions. Both parties want the same thing, that "thing" is entirely contrary to the visions of this nation's Founders, and they're both winning.
Are you really a doctor, BBD? Ever try to save the life of a patient who didn't want to live? How'd that go? Or did you just write it off as a statistical anomoly?
I work everyday in the field that I call "applied psychology." People make their own lives, they are their own worst enemies (and their greatest heroes), and there are no victims. Come back out of your research to the real world, which is shockingly like a fantasy.
As for your last part, the problem with health care in America is not that it isn't socialized enough, but that it is already socialized too much. What we have already tasted is just a sampler of the horror to come if we go your way.
edit: btw, being called either ignorant or idiot by a person who acts as though they know everything is quite amusing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter