Yet another healthcare topic

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If the discussion is about healthcare, donating to a research charity does not necessarily translate into helping people afford their treatment, nor does it help lower the cost of the eventual drug or treatment when it becomes available.

If I gave $1M to cure cancer, none of that will go to anyone actually seeking cancer treatment.

This.

Research charities are completely beside the point and irrelevant to the conversation. Donating to them is not donating to charities that provide healthcare services, and that is what we are discussing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

And I believe that society should offer help to its weakest members, but that a strong society shouldn't force anything on any of its members.

Rule by force is slavery.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

And I believe that society should offer help to its weakest members, but that a strong society shouldn't force anything on any of its members.

Rule by force is slavery.

What does this mean in a practical application? It sounds like a meaningless slogan.

[LMNO]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

[hooplala]

What happens when people start abusing the system? 

Do you know how many looney hypochondriacs I know who are at the doctor three or four times a month, because the DON'T have to pay for it?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What happens when people start abusing the system? 

Do you know how many looney hypochondriacs I know who are at the doctor three or four times a month, because the DON'T have to pay for it?

I bet there are fewer people doing this every year (and if there's nothing wrong with them, a mere office visit isn't very expensive) than there are people who die of conditions that would have been treatable had they been insured.

[Elder Iptuous]

Nigel,
that's why i think everything that can possibly be done at the state level should be left to the states,  there would be competition of systems, and those that wish to be governed one way could move to the appropriate state, and the others to another state.
saying, "love it or leave it" in regards to the entire country is silly when we could simply have more variation domestically. (and, in fact, should by the original intent)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

And I believe that society should offer help to its weakest members, but that a strong society shouldn't force anything on any of its members.

Rule by force is slavery.

What does this mean in a practical application? It sounds like a meaningless slogan.

Example 1: "Hi Nigel, I will be protecting your business from now on. You owe me 25% of your profits weekly or something bad might happen to your studio"

Example 2: "Hi citizen Nigel, the government will be protecting your business from now on. You owe Uncle Sam a 25% tax on your profits or we will seize your assets"

What is the practical difference between these two examples?

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

That's what I meant when I said let the "Go Galt". If they don't want to pay taxes then they must pay an annual fee to use any service, including sidewalks and roads... or if they don't want to pay such fees they can go off on their own and take care of themselves... and if their house burns down and they die of exposure, well that's the result of their own choices and decisions, I have no problem with it.

[hooplala]

What happens when people start abusing the system? 

Do you know how many looney hypochondriacs I know who are at the doctor three or four times a month, because the DON'T have to pay for it?

I bet there are fewer people doing this every year (and if there's nothing wrong with them, a mere office visit isn't very expensive) than there are people who die of conditions that would have been treatable had they been insured.

Ok, granted, but what if they do? 

[Freeky]

Since hypochondriacs got brought up, I have a point to put in. They do not, as far as I know (my grandmother is one, certifiably), knowingly ABUSE the health care system because they're insured. No. They go to see a doctor (or they go to the ER) because they think there is something wrong with them. Yes.

/.02

[hooplala]

Since hypochondriacs got brought up, I have a point to put in. They do not, as far as I know (my grandmother is one, certifiably), knowingly ABUSE the health care system because they're insured. No. They go to see a doctor (or they go to the ER) because they think there is something wrong with them. Yes.

/.02

I agree, but that still costs money and wastes the time of doctors.

[LMNO]

So, are we discussing what would make a perfect system, or just a better one?


Because a better system would allow hypochondriacs to see a doctor for a slight bump in taxes in order not to let anyone die just because they can't afford it.

[East Coast Hustle]

Since hypochondriacs got brought up, I have a point to put in. They do not, as far as I know (my grandmother is one, certifiably), knowingly ABUSE the health care system because they're insured. No. They go to see a doctor (or they go to the ER) because they think there is something wrong with them. Yes.

/.02

I agree, but that still costs money and wastes the time of doctors.

and avoiding the expense of insured office visits from hypochondriacs is TOTALLY worth not providing basic universal healthcare to people who would otherwise die a horrible death from a treatable condition.