Yet another healthcare topic

[Elder Iptuous]

Jenne,

if lobbyists are the issue (and i believe they are, well actually i think it is the elected representatives cowing to the lobbyists that are the problem), then that is the issue that should be addressed.  adding a large federal program that will funnel tons of money is only going to attract further abuse of lobbying, don't you think?

as far as your response to my comment to LMNO, it sounds like you are saying that it is emergency response that must be administered without regard to determining the voluntary status of the individual.  I totally agree.  we should not privatize the fire dept.  we should not privatize the police.  the emergency room should admit you without first asking your insurance status....
wait.  isn't that the way it already is?

please don't lump me (or others who are opposed to federal healthcare) in with people who's views i (or they) never espoused.  Not everyone opposed to this plan is an extremist.  Not saying that you are, but just wanted to put that out there...

Iptuous,
just doesn't want to get emotional in the debate...

[Iason Ouabache]

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?

One of the major draw backs to doing it at the local level instead of federal is that the states that need it the most already don't have enough money. Some places in the Deep South have health care systems that are barely better than third world countries and don't have enough taxes coming in to cover everyone who needs it. A federal system would make it easy to pool resources and get help to where it is needed the most. Yes, that would "redistribute the wealth" from rich Blue states to poor Red states. That seems to be the only solution at this point though.

[Jenne]

Jenne,

if lobbyists are the issue (and i believe they are, well actually i think it is the elected representatives cowing to the lobbyists that are the problem), then that is the issue that should be addressed.  adding a large federal program that will funnel tons of money is only going to attract further abuse of lobbying, don't you think?

as far as your response to my comment to LMNO, it sounds like you are saying that it is emergency response that must be administered without regard to determining the voluntary status of the individual.  I totally agree.  we should not privatize the fire dept.  we should not privatize the police.  the emergency room should admit you without first asking your insurance status....
wait.  isn't that the way it already is?

please don't lump me (or others who are opposed to federal healthcare) in with people who's views i (or they) never espoused.  Not everyone opposed to this plan is an extremist.  Not saying that you are, but just wanted to put that out there...

Iptuous,
just doesn't want to get emotional in the debate...

Well, I was taking your response to LMNO as he was responding to the others, so I apologize if I lumped you in.  Rat's example was a direct response to a lot of the prior discussion, I thought.

Anyway, I get emotional, myself, because these are the issues shaping the force of today's crises when it comes to the bankruptcy of our state governments.  The California PTA has just joined a lawsuit agains the state of California with the state board of education association.  This is going to be ugly, most likely.  And I'm all for it.

But what does it say about what's going on in the state government if you have to SUE it to get your goods and services taken care of?  We spend more on imprisoning people than we do on educating our children.  What's wrong here?

And it's not like the prisoners have a cushy existence out there, it's just that we'd rather spend money putting them and keeping them in there than preventing it.

A fundamental mindset change is needed.  So yes, I get emotional, because objectivity doesn't win out here--this is my street, my neighborhood, my school, my house that are going to be affected.  My husband's JOB is nonprofit healthcare.

The "selfish, asshole, 'taxed-enough-already'" bullshit just only goes so far with me.  It has no other grounds than to say, "I don't wanna, and I resent that you make me."  Without further recourse into a viable alternative solution.  Relying upon CHARITY in a time like this?  When your fellow neighbor is also "taxed enough already" and losing ground in their finances?  Really?  Come on.

[hooplala]

Relying upon CHARITY in a time like this?  When your fellow neighbor is also "taxed enough already" and losing ground in their finances?  Really?  Come on.

charity |ˈ ch aritē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1. the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.


So...

choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good


Guess I need to re-think my morals... I had always gone with the line of thought that said the ability to make a decision consciously was what made an action a virtue or otherwise.  I guess my whole world view was backwards.  Distressing.

[LMNO]

so·ci·e·ty -
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.


If you choose to participate in a society, you choose to help those in need who are of your society.

[Elder Iptuous]

...Yes, that would "redistribute the wealth" from rich Blue states to poor Red states. That seems to be the only solution at this point though.

So you're saying that the people that are trying so hard to get the passed are doing it as a self sacrifice to aid those that are trying so hard to resist it?
there's something about a horse and water that's on the tip of my tongue...
how about the rich blue states just make some charitable contributions to the poor rednecks.  maybe it would help their image a bit.

But what does it say about what's going on in the state government if you have to SUE it to get your goods and services taken care of?  We spend more on imprisoning people than we do on educating our children.  What's wrong here?

Perhaps it says that govt. isn't the best way of administering services if it can be avoided in any way.  Perhaps it says that having a monopoly on force is an irrisistable attractant to those that would use it for corrupt purposes, and linking this to quality of life things is asking for it in the long run, even though it seems good on paper....
just thinking out loud here...

The "selfish, asshole, 'taxed-enough-already'" bullshit just only goes so far with me.  It has no other grounds than to say, "I don't wanna, and I resent that you make me."  Without further recourse into a viable alternative solution.  Relying upon CHARITY in a time like this?  When your fellow neighbor is also "taxed enough already" and losing ground in their finances?  Really?  Come on.

See, i view the 'I resent that you make me.' as not only a valid defense, but as a preferred default position.  I view those that wish to implement social plans when there is significant opposition to it to be inherently violent.

Look,  I feel that the nation would be much safer if every single citizen were armed and trained in the use of an open carry weapon.  I believe that the rate of crime would drop dramatically if all school children were taught the proper use and respect of a pistol in junior high.  I can point to studies to back up what I'm saying and juggle facts an figures to show that I know better that those who are opposed to this notion.  So let's do it...
I'm guessing you think that's retarded.
Well. It is.
It would be fucking retarded to push my beliefs on you and force your participation in something that you don't believe, even if I'm completely convinced that I know better than you.  Even if I think it would have huge positive effects on our economy, and save countless lives.
Its just not right.



Iptuous,
almost always has his stupid analogies shown to be invalid prima fascie, and regrets it before he's even done typing....

[Elder Iptuous]

so·ci·e·ty -
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.


If you choose to participate in a society, you choose to help those in need who are of your society.

i believe you are conflating society and state....
one is amorphous and subtle, the other uses jackboots and calls you out.
i know you aren't suggesting that we get to choose whether or not to participate under the state....

[Requia ☣]

choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

[LMNO]

Well, that's a can o' worms, innit?

You choose to live here.  It ain't North Korea, you won't get shot if you renounce your citizenship.

[hooplala]

choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have a question for everyone who is opposed to socialized healthcare and believes the poor should rely on charity for their healthcare:

How much do you give to medical charity funds annually?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

[hooplala]

I have a question for everyone who is opposed to socialized healthcare and believes the poor should rely on charity for their healthcare:

How much do you give to medical charity funds annually?

I give to Diabetes and Breast Cancer charities annually, and the rest I don't because my taxes already cover it.

[hooplala]

choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

Charity as it is now, sure, but you know that's not what I'm talking about.  What I'm talking about has never been tried, so there is no way to know.

[hooplala]

Also, I would like to make clear that if universal healthcare was something I needed to vote on (it isn't here - at least yet) I would vote in favour of it.  I don't think my ideas are practical in our current culture, but that also doesn't mean I think its completely right.  It is, though, the best we have at the moment.  I just think there are better ways it could be done.