Ok, Republicans. We give up!!!

[Elder Iptuous]

000,
you say that this is the crux of the matter.

...but other monkeys, enough to make your entire plan fall to pieces, will help them. either because they think this is the "right thing to do", or because they can't stand to see other monkeys suffering like that, or because the sick monkeys trick them with complicated lies about "human rights" and such.
...
in the end..., everybody ends up involuntarily paying for everybody else.

in order for that to be the case, you are having to define their charity based on some moralistic, empathetic, or philosophic grounds to be 'involuntary'.
is that the way you see it?  (or did i excesively snip your comment and miss the point entirely?)


ETA: also, Trip, i just wanted to point out that i'm not one of the 'hardcore liberians' that want everything privatized.  i understand the value of public infrastructure.

[LMNO]

The way I intepreted that is that no matter what philispohical economic argument you make, if your mother gets shot and she doesn't have health care, you're taking her to the hospital to get treated.

The cost gets distributed to the rest of us as a result.

[Elder Iptuous]

The way I intepreted that is that no matter what philispohical economic argument you make, if your mother gets shot and she doesn't have health care, you're taking her to the hospital to get treated.

The cost gets distributed to the rest of us as a result.

If i take her to the hospital, and she doesn't have health care, why wouldn't I get stuck with the bill?

[LMNO]

I'm assuming you don't have health insurance either.  

Let's say the bullet does massive internal damage, but not immediately fatal.  Multiple surgeries are needed, as well as rehabilitiation and about a month in the hospital.

And let's say that the bill comes to $200,000.  And let's say you make $25,000 a year, most of which goes to rent, food and gas; so you have no savings.

So, you declare bankruptcy.  And the hospital doesn't get paid.  How does it defray costs?  By passing it along to the other patients, for starters.  By charging more to those with healthcare.

[Elder Iptuous]

I'm assuming you don't have health insurance either.  

Let's say the bullet does massive internal damage, but not immediately fatal.  Multiple surgeries are needed, as well as rehabilitiation and about a month in the hospital.

And let's say that the bill comes to $200,000.  And let's say you make $25,000 a year, most of which goes to rent, food and gas; so you have no savings.

So, you declare bankruptcy.  And the hospital doesn't get paid.  How does it defray costs?  By passing it along to the other patients, for starters.  By charging more to those with healthcare.

right.  that makes sense to me, except for two points.
-that last sentence.  are you saying the hospitals will charge a different rate to those that have insurance than those that don't?  or are you just saying they will simply raise prices to factor in unpaid services?
-second point is the monkeys that 000 mentioned that will give out of charity.  growing up in church i saw this all the time.  here at the office i work at, i've seen it too.  ive seen friends bail each other out.
sure, there would be times when somebody is unable to get charity for their misfortune, and have to declare bankruptcy.  this would have to be factored into the hospital's costs just like general loss in a retail store.  if they were unwilling to do this, or it was simply economically infeasible, they could choose to only work on patients with coverage, or cash up front.

[LMNO]

The cost for services in hospitals takes into account estimated losses.  If they didn't, they would be losing money as a rule.  If they didn't, any unpaid service would cost them money.  That's simple economics.  And there's this thing called the Hippocratic Oath.  A doctor can't not treat an injured person in an emergency room.  There might be a few laws stating the same thing.

"Charity"... so, only people with friends who can afford to pay should get treated if they don't have healthcare?

[LMNO]

I guess what I'm seeing from you is a willingness to let a fellow citizen die if they're poor.

[Cainad (dec.)]

The cost for services in hospitals takes into account estimated losses.  If they didn't, they would be losing money as a rule.  If they didn't, any unpaid service would cost them money.  That's simple economics.  And there's this thing called the Hippocratic Oath.  A doctor can't not treat an injured person in an emergency room.  There might be a few laws stating the same thing.

"Charity"... so, only people with friends who can afford to pay should get treated if they don't have healthcare?

There are.

And if there was enough charity to cushion the cost of healthcare, healthcare wouldn't be a problem. Also, people like my uncle who oppose government-run healthcare are also the sort of people who won't pay for their own disabled sister's health insurance despite having a net worth of over a million dollars.

I guess what I'm seeing from you is a willingness to let a fellow citizen die if they're poor.

That would be the corporate model of health insurance. The Free Market values profit, and it is 120% possible to make a glorious profit while allowing people to suffer and die.

[LMNO]

I guess my views on the matter are that if a citizenry of a country are healthy and educated, that I'll be living in a more tolerant, more interesting, less violent society.

I'll gladly pay taxes to make that happen.

[Requia ☣]

I'm curious... in what way would a gvt run insurance plan be more incompetent than an HMO?

I know the standard line is, "the gvt wouldn't run it right," but no one give any details on what exactly they would fuck up.

My primary concern is the political interference, IE, the ability of women to get medically necessary abortions while republicans are in power.

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

I'm curious... in what way would a gvt run insurance plan be more incompetent than an HMO?

I know the standard line is, "the gvt wouldn't run it right," but no one give any details on what exactly they would fuck up.

My primary concern is the political interference, IE, the ability of women to get medically necessary abortions while republicans are in power.

Go on...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It seems to me that we will always have to deal with taxes... the government will always take some of our money and do *something* with it. Out of all the possible things it could do, providing an optional healthcare system for its citizens seems like a much better way of spending the money. My darling Sjaantze has no health insurance, if she was a guy and we were living together, she could get on my insurance... but she's female, so she can't. She works in landscaping, there's no insurance there. In the winter she does bartending, there's no insurance there.

The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.

The government is probably one of the worst entities to try to manage a huge system like healthcare, but its got to be better than Cigna, United and the rest of the blood sucking assholes out there promoting the Slave Free Market

[Elder Iptuous]

I guess what I'm seeing from you is a willingness to let a fellow citizen die if they're poor.

it would seem so.  
(even though i have given to people that were in need)
and what i'm seeing from you is a willingness to extort money from citizens for a program that is out of the purview of the federal govt.

Also, people like my uncle who oppose government-run healthcare are also the sort of people who won't pay for their own disabled sister's health insurance despite having a net worth of over a million dollars.

i know that your not saying that since your uncle is a rich asshole and he opposes gov run healthcare, that all (or even most!) of those that oppose gov run healthcare are rich assholes like your uncle?...
so what are you getting at there?

I guess my views on the matter are that if a citizenry of a country are healthy and educated, that I'll be living in a more tolerant, more interesting, less violent society.

I'll gladly pay taxes to make that happen.

i savagely prefer the onus of responsibility to rest on the individual, knowing full well that, given human nature, society as a whole will be less tolerant, and more violent.  (i would argue the 'interesting' point)

[LMNO]

I'm curious... in what way would a gvt run insurance plan be more incompetent than an HMO?

I know the standard line is, "the gvt wouldn't run it right," but no one give any details on what exactly they would fuck up.

My primary concern is the political interference, IE, the ability of women to get medically necessary abortions while republicans are in power.

Go on...

I hadn't thought about this angle.  Hmm...

I guess what I'm seeing from you is a willingness to let a fellow citizen die if they're poor.

it would seem so. 
(even though i have given to people that were in need)
and what i'm seeing from you is a willingness to extort money from citizens for a program that is out of the purview of the federal govt.

So:  Money is more important than human life.  Gotcha.

I never thought you'd be that much of a greedy bastard, Ipt.

[Elder Iptuous]

The healthcare situation, I think, is one that betrays the inherent flaws in the 'capitalistic' society. The claim is that the market will provide... yet, we didn't see the market provide here... Any time in the past 20 years the Market could have come up with a solution and pushed for legislation to cover it... Healthcare Co-Ops on a per city basis, Basic healthcarre packages that covered emergencies and only necessary stuff... but instead 'the market' was focused on profit, to the point that the health care industry looked for ways NOT to pay for healthcare, in order to have more profit.

Right.  this has me curious.  if there is a market there (and there certainly is) for better coverage, then why hasn't it emerged?  Although i am ignorant of the answer, i would be willing to wager that it is because of legislative interference bought by the crappy existing system....  That isn't capitalism.  that is fascism.
am i incorrect in my wager?