Yet another healthcare topic

[East Coast Hustle]

And then there's the absurdity of self-employment tax, made doubly absurd because if you're self-employed you don't have the option of drawing unemployment if your business tanks.

That's why you incorporate as an S-Corp, or even an LLC. Then you can pay yourself a salary and if the business tanks you CAN draw unemployment.

[AFK]

Dok -

Excellent analysis. I really can't add to that other than expressing my frustration at the enormous fur ball of injustice and stupidity that is lodged in America's psychic gullet.

I work in the health care industry and we're assaulted on pretty much a weekly basis with the insanity that is going on. I think calling it a 'health care system' suggests a level of organization and order that it quite blatantly doesn't possess.

One of our clients was treated for breast cancer. She was in the ridiculous and unenviable position of regularly phoning her insurance company and shouting at them. For some reason, this poor lady was required to say to them "I kind of need you to pay this, so I won't DIE!!!"

One of Mrs Mang's clients (she works in the financial field) had a message from a client. He wants to take money from his investments to pay for his chemo. Of course, because he wants X dollars right away, he'll get hit with fees & surrender charges and all manner of other bullshit. So, he's trying to find a way to pay for his medications predicated on the rules of an investment company.

Then there's a good family friend. Her mom's got breast cancer as did quite a number of her relatives. She's in a high risk category. Her doctor told her that she really should get genetic testing done. Genetic testing is very expensive. What is my friend doing? She's waiting a few months for her insurance to renew so she can get the tests done and not get hit with the potential 'pre-existing condition' gimmick.

Today I just had an e-mail from a really cool client who I liked working with. She basically had to stop coming to our office because we're not covered under her insurance....even though she experienced the most amount of relief for her back issue by visiting us. 'Your treatments worked best but I'm going to pay for something that wasn't as effective because without the insurance I wouldn't be able to do anything at all.'

I've got examples like this up the wazoo.

America needs to familiarize itself with the AWFUL TROOTHS:

a) America is not the best country in the world. Consulting any index for health, education, crime, standard of living etc etc etc will repeatedly demonstrate that this assertion is false. (Incidentally, the US like number 37 in the world for health standards)

b) Secondly, why the hell does anyone want to go around boasting that they're the 'best country in the world' anyway? It's completely asinine.

c) American health care is the most expensive in the world but it is not the most effective.

d) Since the 1990's, health care costs have spiraled and the chances of people dying of things they didn't need to die of have likewise risen dramatically.

e) Countries with 'evil socialist' medicine provide pretty decent care. Perfect system? No. But what is? However, you won't mind many Brits for example, who are like one of our neighbors who lost his house because of his wife's hospital costs.

f) America already has a system whereby they pay money to the government to look after them in case something happens. It's called 'Social Security' and 'Medicare'. Duh. Social medicine already exists - it's just very small.

g) Just because a country has nationalized health care doesn't mean that rich people would have to wait in lines. There's plenty of private health care in the UK if you want & can pay for it (especially when it comes to Dentistry)

h) ARGHAGHGAGGHHHH......just fucking ARGHGHGHHGHHHH  

This needs to be printed out, copied a zillion times, and dumped on John "I love my tanning bed" Bohner.  I really hate that guy. 

[Elder Iptuous]

I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

[LMNO]

So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

Guy 1:  Hey, don't you know that smoking is bad for you?

Guy 2:  I've heard about it.  I don't care.

Guy 1:  Yeah, well you're hurting other people with your smoke.

Guy 2:  Dude, I'm outside, nobody is being hurt by my smoke.

Guy 1:  Yeah?  Well, I HOPE YOU DIE A SLOW, PAINFUL AND HORRIBLE DEATH, WITH CANCER EATING YOUR ORGANS FROM THE INSIDE OUT AS YOU SPLATTER YOUR CHILDREN WITH THE BLOOD SPLUTTERING FROM YOUR MOUTH, GASPING FOR THE NEXT BREATH; AND I WILL BE THERE, LAUGHING AT YOU, BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK FOR A FELLOW HUMAN BEING.  CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO PAY TAXES.

See, that's kind of how it sounds to me.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Let's say that we have two types of citizens, Free Citizens and Taxed Citizens. Taxed Citizens have pretty much the exact same life that we all do right now. They go to the BMV, pay $40 and get a driver's license. "Free Citizens" that don't pay taxes, on the other hand, must enter into a contract with the US government and pay substantially more for the privilege of driving on tax funded roads. Taxed Citizens can call 911 and get an immediate response from their local cops, fire dept or EMS unit. "Free Citizens" must enter into a private contract with private services, OR be billed by the 911 service after the fact. Taxed Citizens have full access to the National Parks, "Free Citizens" must pay a fee in order to visit a park that is funded by tax dollars. Etc Etc

The only 'rights' guaranteed to "Free Citizens" would be the ones specifically enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Everything else would cost a fee.

If the Conservitards want to "Go GALT" we should let them, we should help them. If they choose to be a "Free Citizen" then they no longer have to worry about the SOCIALISTS taking their money and providing them with services in return. Instead, they have to purchase each service individually at a higher cost.

I would wager that within a decade, most 'Free Citizens' would reconsider their choice and stop whining every time Congress was about to pass a bill.

It seems to me that the best way to kill the movement is to give them what they want.

[hooplala]

So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

Guy 1:  Hey, don't you know that smoking is bad for you?

Guy 2:  I've heard about it.  I don't care.

Guy 1:  Yeah, well you're hurting other people with your smoke.

Guy 2:  Dude, I'm outside, nobody is being hurt by my smoke.

Guy 1:  Yeah?  Well, I HOPE YOU DIE A SLOW, PAINFUL AND HORRIBLE DEATH, WITH CANCER EATING YOUR ORGANS FROM THE INSIDE OUT AS YOU SPLATTER YOUR CHILDREN WITH THE BLOOD SPLUTTERING FROM YOUR MOUTH, GASPING FOR THE NEXT BREATH; AND I WILL BE THERE, LAUGHING AT YOU, BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK FOR A FELLOW HUMAN BEING.  CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO PAY TAXES.

See, that's kind of how it sounds to me.

That's part of the problem.  People can't seem to disagree with others without believing that the person they disagree with is a horrible baby-eating monster.

Why couldn't people put the money they would have been putting from taxes toward healthcare into a charity that would basically deal with health issues the same way the proposed healthcare benefits would?  Why would the automatic assumption be that anyone would be laughing at a person dying?  How cynical does one need to be to have so little faith in their fellow men?

If someone hates smoking and smokers they shouldn't have to pay for their recuperation.  They could donate the money that would have been going to taxes to something like the Heart and Lung association, and those who DID want to smoke would give their money to a different organization which was set up for people who smoked, or were fat, or whatever the demonized aspect of their behaviour is today or tomorrow.

The money the government would be taking is here, we have it, why would you choose not to use it in a way that would benefit you later?  But why does it need to be a blanket system, and why through the government? 

[LMNO]

Why couldn't people put the money they would have been putting from taxes toward healthcare into a charity that would basically deal with health issues the same way the proposed healthcare benefits would?


Isn't that just a semantic difference?  You pay your taxes, a percentage of which is used for healthcare.  Whether it's handled by the gvt or by some "charity", what's the difference?

Your example makes it sound like you don't want to help people.

[hooplala]

Why couldn't people put the money they would have been putting from taxes toward healthcare into a charity that would basically deal with health issues the same way the proposed healthcare benefits would?


Isn't that just a semantic difference?  You pay your taxes, a percentage of which is used for healthcare.  Whether it's handled by the gvt or by some "charity", what's the difference?

Your example makes it sound like you don't want to help people.

It's not that, I am for healthcare, I'm arguing why some people are against it. Which is what you asked for.

But, when we pay taxes it goes a bunch of places that we don't know about... what if someone doesn't give a wit for the arts in any way shape or form?  Why should they be shelling out for government grants for artists?  They shouldn't have to.  If they are forced to, that is theft.   If you take my money and then tell me how its going to be used, that is theft.  Or maybe it's only theft in Canada.

If healthcare was set up in the way I described people would know exactly where their money is going.  Why is that such a problem?

[Elder Iptuous]

LMNO,

It sounds like you are implying that it should be illegal to be selfish or an asshole...

i mean, i know that's not how you would put it, but isn't that just semantics?  people should be forced to do something because the 'generosity' would result ultimately in their benefit, and declining to be generous would result in charges?
I'm not saying that as an indictment, necessarily.  perhaps Roger is right and self rule is a failed experiment.  perhaps we should not have determination over the allocation of our labor, because we have the tendency to take care of only ourselves and the concomitant inefficiencies are a limitation on what we can do when viewed from the level of a society....
Of course, that line of thinking does not have a clear cut boundary and there are those among us that would oppose the efforts to move in that direction.  It makes me uncomfortable, and sends many into a froth, and I can't understand why you can't see the rationale behind their position, even if you don't agree with it...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

It works at the state level in Oregon, it's just only for the very very low-income... and it's fantastic that we have it. It doesn't cover most of the working class and lower-middle-class though.

[Elder Iptuous]

I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

It works at the state level in Oregon, it's just only for the very very low-income... and it's fantastic that we have it. It doesn't cover most of the working class and lower-middle-class though.

Hm... interesting.
why hasn't it been extended to the working and lower-middle class?
and why aren't the more progressed blue states all doing this to whatever level they wish?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

It works at the state level in Oregon, it's just only for the very very low-income... and it's fantastic that we have it. It doesn't cover most of the working class and lower-middle-class though.

Hm... interesting.
why hasn't it been extended to the working and lower-middle class?
and why aren't the more progressed blue states all doing this to whatever level they wish?

It has been expanded recently to cover everyone in the state who is under the age of 18, regardless of their family income level, and I anticipate that the income maximum to qualify will eventually be raised.

I honestly don't know why people don't want socialized medicine, instead of the raping insurance wolves that profit off illness.

[Elder Iptuous]

It has been expanded recently to cover everyone in the state who is under the age of 18, regardless of their family income level, and I anticipate that the income maximum to qualify will eventually be raised.

I honestly don't know why people don't want socialized medicine, instead of the raping insurance wolves that profit off illness.

That sounds fantastic.  if the several states are able to successfully implement social medicine according to the desires of their citizens, then more people would get what they want, there would be less people forced to do what they don't want, and there would be competition between the socialized medicine structures used, that would work to refine them further.
why isn't this possibility being enacted by those that support socialized medicine?
and why isn't it being raised as an argument against a federal system by those opposed?

as far as your last statement, i guess there are people that view it as a false dichotomy.

[Jenne]

WHY isn't it implemented at the state level?  Lobbyists.  Insurance lobbyists are huge and have a great pull right now.

Add to that the the lower middle and working classes probably make up the majority of Americans in general, and what you're looking at is state budget increases that will break the banks of most state government budgets.

State budgets run on taxes and capital gains increases.  In a "bear" market where job losses are on the rise, and more and more of us are unable to pay our bills and filing for unemployment, our state budgets are now in the red.  Constantly.

You won't find state legislators voluntarily putting down the lobbyist yummies to start up a comprehsensive state run health plan UNLESS they have no other fucking choice.

What brings them to that level is diverse and pretty complicated (i.e. usually a lawsuit).

[Jenne]

LMNO,

It sounds like you are implying that it should be illegal to be selfish or an asshole...

i mean, i know that's not how you would put it, but isn't that just semantics?  people should be forced to do something because the 'generosity' would result ultimately in their benefit, and declining to be generous would result in charges?
I'm not saying that as an indictment, necessarily.  perhaps Roger is right and self rule is a failed experiment.  perhaps we should not have determination over the allocation of our labor, because we have the tendency to take care of only ourselves and the concomitant inefficiencies are a limitation on what we can do when viewed from the level of a society….
Of course, that line of thinking does not have a clear cut boundary and there are those among us that would oppose the efforts to move in that direction.  It makes me uncomfortable, and sends many into a froth, and I can't understand why you can't see the rationale behind their position, even if you don't agree with it...

Because in the end this individual will also be "stealing" from society.  The inevitability in THIS reality that Ratatosk's example of the private vs. the public citizen is impossible. 

NO one wants to make you pull out your insurance card when you are dying in a car wreck before they load you up in an ambulance.

NO one wants to see if you've been "marked" by society for public assistance when your house is on fire, when you've been robbed, when you've lost your job, when your spouse is dying in a hospital and your kids need bread, milk and cheese.

Come on.  Real world.  This world.  And selfish assholes who don't like being taxed should stop walking on my roads, drinking my clean water and sending their kids to my schools.  (ok, not really, but that's where I end up going when I think of how dumb it is to think you could throw the government away like that and NOT use any of it, ever, again)