No actually, they didn't, they could have kept fighting. They chose to accept the terms presented to them. There is always a choice. Don't get me wrong, the way in which the nation was formed was not exactly very humanitarian of our ancestors. We are the sons and daughters of murders and robbers to put it bluntly. In our wrath we have crush entire cultures. I don't freel guilty of it in the slightest, because I didn't do any of it. But I will oppose those trying to take away the future inheritance of my children, and theirs too. We just wanted it more, so we got it. If they don't want to get stomped again they should probably stay on their side of the river and we won't have any problems. Stealing food from my child does not improve world hunger, it just makes my child go hungry while another doesn't. Frankly, I care more about my own children than I do somebody else's. Don't be upset because my paradigm of reality conflicts with your rainbow world of fairies and elves paying the bills and mortgages. Not often I get to use scriptures properly. I felt it sufficed. Matthew 7:1-5 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
We just wanted it more, so we got it. If they don't want to get stomped again they should probably stay on their side of the river and we won't have any problems. Stealing food from my child does not improve world hunger, it just makes my child go hungry while another doesn't. Frankly, I care more about my own children than I do somebody else's. Don't be upset because my paradigm of reality conflicts with your rainbow world of fairies and elves paying the bills and mortgages. Not often I get to use scriptures properly. I felt it sufficed. Matthew 7:1-5 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.[/QUOTE] - - - Updated - - - We just wanted it more, so we got it. If they don't want to get stomped again they should probably stay on their side of the river and we won't have any problems. Stealing food from my child does not improve world hunger, it just makes my child go hungry while another doesn't. Frankly, I care more about my own children than I do somebody else's. Don't be upset because my paradigm of reality conflicts with your rainbow world of fairies and elves paying the bills and mortgages. Not often I get to use scriptures properly. I felt it sufficed. Matthew 7:1-5 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.[/QUOTE]
Yes, death is a choice, but so is a change of behavior. Not all options can be view with rose colored mirror shades because not all options are rosy. Reality is a harsh mistress. No you didn't ask if I felt guilty, but I can tell you if I want. Assuming I'm answering a question you never asked is not a path to victory. Well I have oodles of scriptures handy, need a pdf? Or Docx format so you can alter it to your liking and then republish? So do you have any real solution to the health care problem that actually works, or are you just upset that someone disagrees with your proposals? Because at this point I am struggling to come up with reasons to respond to you. This particular segment caught my attention. Contrary to what the magic 8-ball, ouija board, I Ching, or runes you may be divining with, there is much more you need to know. Also, simply because my mind is functioning different than yours does not make it wrong. Or perhaps the divination tool of choice needs calibrating. You assume I am riding on the pony of pride when I compare myself to you. If anything, we are lowly equals differing in only the most minute ways in comparison to the Divine being that created us. So really, what do I have to be proud about? Or you for that matter?
I think you are misinformed. First off, you are taking a very narrow view of the entire issue. Yes, more people may survive in America from all of those things, but how many people are left swimming in a pile of debt when they are done getting healthcare? In the declaration of independence, one of the most famous lines is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." You may notice that the FIRST THING LISTED is life. Now, I know firsthand somebody who died because they got poor medical care. Why did she get poor medical care? Because she couldn't afford it!!! The doctor said that she didn't have insurance, so they gave her lousy medical care, and STILL charged her. There are a few democratic policies that I strongly disagree with (e.g. progressive tax system and the welfare system), but even though I can't stand seeing people get free money from the government, that person still has a right to live, and they are being stripped of that right with our system. The insurance companies are con artists and while I am all about the pursuit of profits, to pursue profits at the expense of a life is just wrong. We are basically putting monetary values on people's life by denying them healthcare, and it is killing a lot of people. The government needs to be spending more money on education, military, infrastructure (roads, courthouses, etc.) and healthcare and cut way back on social welfare benefits for people. I also think the government should still be promoting competition within healthcare and education (there is NO competition in education right now, the only thing that matters is seniority, and that is just stupid to me), but they should be subsidized so that everybody has an equal opportunity. The only thing that I believe people have the right to equality in is opportunity, I don't think that people deserve equal shares in the metaphorical economic "pie" that everybody talks about. However, by denying even a small minority of people the right to healthcare is to deny them their right to live and therefore their opportunity in this country.
Life does have a price tag. Gotta pay to play this game. I would rather be able to live to pay off my debts for the rest of my life than die. Those unwilling to do the same do not deserve my cash to accomplish what they themselves are unwilling to do. Yes, life is the first thing listed, but nowhere did I see health care paid for by somebody else listed there among unalienable rights, or the bill of rights for that matter. Want them? Amend the Constitution. Easy as pie. Evil, but easy as pie. [/quote] Now, I know firsthand somebody who died because they got poor medical care. Why did she get poor medical care? Because she couldn't afford it!!! The doctor said that she didn't have insurance, so they gave her lousy medical care, and STILL charged her.[/quote] Sad story, it is. But no matter how sad a story is, I am not going to give my kid's sandwich to some other kid who is hungry if it means my kid goes hungry. This may come off heartless, but it profits nobody to proceed like that. Also note that I have no heart strings to tug on for further anectdotes. Right to live yes, not a right to live free of charge of medical care. If you aren't willing to pay for it than you probably shouldn't be demanding for it. Asking for charity is another venue altogether, one which has done much good in the world. Alot can be given merely for the asking. Agreed, the keenest form of devilry, next to banking if you ask me. Agreed again, putting some altruism and morality back into capitalism is a grand thing if you ask me. Sadly, we reward the opposite with the current legal environment. Reality is this, the government sees you as currency already. You are a form of stock, ever wonder why you have a birth certificate and SSN? Do some digging and you'll find out some ugly truth in the weird part of the USC. Dark stuff. Agree on roads, military, courthouses. Disagree on everything else. There is no such thing as equal opportunity, never was. There is only opportunity and the varying grades of people that pursue it. All attempts to legislate it have led to more inequality. All people are created with varying grades of potential - some lights are brighter than others. No it isn't. Many people live without health insurance, and keep living paradoxically according to your claim. Something that may illuminate people who are slightly uninformed. John Stossel's take on health care. It is only 6 minutes, take a little time and explore an avenue of thought you may not have considered before.
Great video, and great points. I completely understand the conservatives problem with obama care and socialized healthcare. Here is the problem I have, and it comes from a game theory/economics issue in one of my classes. The majority of people don't ever really use their health insurance (or wouldn't use it in cases like they are talking about on that video, where they have to pay out of pocket). However, there are always going to be some people that actually do use it, some may use a lot, some may use just a little bit. So suppose the average cost of healthcare is $10,000 for the entire country, so the insurance companies charge $10,000 a year for healthcare. Well the problem is, if I am paying less than $10,000, I'm not going to pay for healthcare, so I stop paying for insurance. Well this is going to move that average up (since the insurance companies will now have to pay more for healthcare for people who actually do use their healthcare), thus moving up the price. Similarly, people who pay less than the new average are going to jump off, as it isn't worth it to them. The same process can be applied again and again until you get to a point where insurance companies need to charge insane amounts for health coverage. This is the advantage of having a kind of "socialized" insurance that large companies have because they are forced to pay for the insurance coverage no matter how much of it they use. As the video states, this does cause problems as people aren't going to take responsibility for their own health. I liked the idea of having to pay fees for smaller things and having the insurance cover large things as that would stop people like me (I'll admit it, I've had health insurance my whole life and I NEVER shop for the best prices, and before I got to college, the idea of not having medical insurance never even crossed my mind...it was just always there for me) from just going to the doctor for every little thing. The only problem with the model I just laid out is that, as I said, insurance companies are absolutely evil. What constitutes a "large cost"? Should insurance cover an "experimental treatment"? Does the person really "need" this treatment? Could this big problem have been prevented if the person saw a doctor when it was a small problem? If so, is it the insurance companies responsibility to cover it? The advantage of capitalism and the system we have is that it does take away ambiguity because "need" does not play a factor (a dollar is a dollar). However, I think that the problem with the system they are suggesting, from a social point of view, is that it could destroy families that just can't afford healthcare that they may need. This could have a rippling effect where children could end up paying for their parents mistakes. This same problem applies to education, as federal government offers loans to everybody, it means that more can afford to go to college, and colleges can raise prices.
Let me get this straight, if you were paying less than the average Joe, you would quit paying because you were getting a better deal? Perhaps I have misunderstood from the writing, but do please clarify. This makes little sense to me. I suspected this would come up. So I did some digging, low and behold Stossel is to the rescue yet again. Discrimination may sound like a dirty word to most, but it has direct application to insurance. Again, it takes a couple minutes to read but the points presented make diabolical amounts of sense. Stossel on health care discrimination. Something I hadn't exactly pondered to deeply, but apparently only some types of discrimination are allowed in the country, and one of those areas is insurance for life, home, etc...but never health insurance. I wonder why the barrier has been built around this clandestine industry? Personal responsiblity is the cure to this mess, but there is an ever growing trend in our society to think that is a bad thing. Yes, they are evil. The length of most contracts and coverages is abominable and written is psuedo-english that most people simply do not understand. And old rule of thumb I live by as much as practical is this: if it has fine print, and the guy asking you to sign it is in a suit and tie, and you don't perfectly understand it, don't sign it. These are all great and valid points. And they should be covered clearly in the contract when signed. As long as neither side tries to evade responsibility for their part, it should work out equitably for all parties involved. You can buy varying grades of health insurance, and get varying grades of health care to boot. Some people will always have higher health costs, other may have none. I would refer these that can't afford it to go to charities of interest. Or I would require them to earn whatever service they are getting by community service or something of value to those providing the health care they need. Because getting a free ride profits nobody in the long term, and hurts everybody as well. Kids have been paying for the mistakes of parents long before this whole health care debate was ever brought up. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a direct example - kids mother was a drunk and now the kid suffers for it because that worthless cow wouldn't quit drinking while pregnant. Kids will always be influenced for good or for evil by the actions of the parents they spring from. Yet another reason the federal government should get out of the education business altogether and let states handle it the way they see fit. Clear abuse and over reach of power by the federal government, and the people suffer as a direct result.
first, I wanna say thanks to you I've been watching all of Stossel's shows cause he makes some (*)(*)(*)(*) good points and his shows are REALLY interesting. I actually have watched all his 20/20 things on youtube since yesterday and they are all great, and I agree with the majority of what he says (I would probably consider myself a libertarian). Anyways, I agree with what you say about responsibility and how Americans have a tendency to shirk it, but what about a solution that allows everybody to win. In other words, much like how we have private schools now, why not have the same thing go for medicine? That way it would still encourage innovation while at the same time allowing people who want medical care to get it. It would lead to lower costs and competition among private medical care, and it would really put the socialized system to the test. He mentions in his 20/20 episode "sick in america" that in Canada, this happens but it is illegal (which I think is just stupid), and it allows people to have some choice in their medical care. I agree that this would, in a sense, punish the people who use the private sector because they will be required health insurance that doesn't give them quality healthcare, but at least they would have that option. That is just a thought, I would be interested to hear your opinion on it though. About the first thing I said that you didn't understand, what I was saying is, suppose there are just 10 people in the world, and there medical expenses are as follows. 5 people will not need to spend any money on healthcare 2 people will need to spend $5,000 on healthcare 2 people will need to spend $10,000 on healthcare 1 person will need to spend $15,000 on healthcare Now, the average cost per person is $4,500. So say the insurance companies charge $4,500 (this is hopefully obvious as to why they would charge at least that price to make a profit) per person for insurance. But if I'm a member of one of the first five people who aren't going to need $4,500 for insurance, I'm going to drop my plan. Well now the average cost per person is up to $9,000, so the insurance companies charge $9,000. Again, the two people who only need $5,000 in healthcare are going to drop their plan, after all, they are basically throwing the other $4,000 down the drain. This process will continue til you end up with health insurance companies needing to charge $15,000 for a plan because anybody who doesn't use it is going to quit it. Hopefully that makes sense. Anyways, a question I would like to ask you is what about people with preexisting conditions? Suppose a woman doesn't have health insurance and gets breast cancer, should we just let her die? I know that you are going to say just go to charities, but there are many people every year who die for this exact reason. They can't afford decent healthcare, and they can't get insurance, so they are basically screwed. Some of them can get some money from charities, but few charities are going to spend a half a million dollars on a woman in her 30s or 40s. This is where those evil banks come in and will give them a loan with insane interest rates (which does make sense, cause they are at a high risk of defaulting), and they are forced into a corner where they must either take the money and possibly end up homeless or claiming bankruptcy or die. These types of situations can lead to violent crime (as seen in movies like John Q). What would your solution to this be?
Pay close attention - it is impossible. This is one of the greatest lies that we have ever been told in our lives. And here is why, it is in direct conflict with nature itself. For a concepts like winning to even exist, they must be defined by their opposites, which is losing. If everybody 'wins' than there is no such thing as losing. Therefore 'winning' ceases to exist by natural default. There are win/win-more solutions, but there is never truly a win/win situation in any facet of life. We are taught this grand lie on a massive scale at every level of society. It sounds wonderful, but is impossible to achieve. Conflict is the seed of all growth and development. Private practices do exist, but they are being crushed currently given the legal environment. Can't really compete against the taxpayer's wallet. Yes, I did see that one as well, and I found it amusing that a dog could get an MRI faster than a human can. Crappy health care is better than no health care, but being forced to pay for crappy health care is just plain stupid. If I have to shell out cash for something I want it done right. If my mechanic doesn't fix my car properly he loses my business, and potentially everybody else I tell as well. But if the same mechanic does well, he keeps my business, and potential earns business of everyone I tell. Socialized medicine doesn't do this. Crappy doctor? Well, you are (*)(*)(*)(*) out of luck. Because odds are he isn't going any time soon. You could probably join a suport group for his malpractice victims, but he isn't going anywhere. I would drop it too. Sucks to be them I guess. This is where discrimination in healthcare comes into play. You see this 'pooled' rating nonsense hurts us, and helps them. I would rather that each man paid according to his own risk factor than being counted on to cover another's risk. Fair to the company, and the individual. This is the result of a bad business model made only to slake the lusts of a bad legal environment. As I mentioned before, life insurance discriminates, so does care insurance. Drunks pay more because they are a riskier investment. It makes sense. But this efficient practice is forbidden when it comes to health care. Why? I suspect you'll find that corruption and lobbying are the answer, but that is my hunch. I have't done to research myself to figure out exactly why this madness continues. But I suspect it benefits a few, by the extraction from the majority. Pre-existing conditions, breast cancer and such. Well yes, charities and private interest groups are a fine way to go. But we both realize that there is never enough to go around to all in need. Also it is to be noted that even people with the greatest care possible still die from problems. For example, there are certain types of cancer in the liver that if you are diagnosed with, you're a time bomb. There is nothing they can do to save your life, because the procedure to kill the cancer will kill you. This basically puts you in the boat of the beggar who can't afford it and has the same condition, you've just got nicer threads in your casket is all. This is where I am typically railed against for having no heart strings - and you'd be right it. It is not that I do not care, it is that I do not care about that which I have zero influence over. I feel no emotion over this for the same reason I feel no emotion over the thousands that die every day in africa, because I have zero influence over it. Now another thing is this, the traditional medicine lobby dominates the healing profession. There are many ways to help people, to be fair there is a great deal of quackery out there as well. And then there is just weird stuff that actually works. Currently this stuff is a fringe element, it remains so because of the great amount of lobbying done to make it that way. I had an ear infection, I didin't care how it was fixed, I just wanted it gone. Didn't have insurance either, but a friend referred me to some natural healing (aka witch doctor woman). Now I'll be the first to admit that I had no idea WTF was going on, her method of diagnoses was...friggin weird. But it worked! Since then I have had no problems. And she earned 35 bucks. Would I go to the same woman for a broken arm? No, that is retarded because she hasn't the tools nor the expertise. I wouldn't go to a mechanic to lay bricks for my house either, for the same reasons. The other thing is this, you pay to maintain your car, you need to pay to maintain your body as well. Much maintenance can be done on your own but something you beyond the scope of your care - like open heart surgery. If you are not willing to pay whatever it takes to save your life than you have just placed a maximum value on your life. You are worth X amount of dollars to preserve. Now if you are willing to pay that for the rest of your days than that is fine - and you should because he saved your life. Just don't gripe if you aren't willing to pay the cost of being alive is all I ask, and certainly do not demand that another pay for it. What I am getting at is that there are more ways to skin a cat than are currently being allowed. Yes, people will fall through the cracks, and die because of it. This always has been so, and will always be so. The other cosmic truth is this: there is no solution. For the same reason there must be victors, there must be those who lose. This notion of "fairness" is laughable at best because it is preposterous to implement. Now we can certainly make it better than what it is now, and we should. We can reduce the amount of people that fall through the cracks but we'll never catch them all, because it cannot be done. It isn't that I think the idea of a solution is silly by itself, it is a noble goal. It is also a noble exercise in futility because it cannot be done. Trying to make the system where "no one is left behind" simply cannot work with the human race. It never has, it never will. And redefining success does not change the outcome either. The efforts to legislate equality and fairness has created the exact opposite in every field it has touched. Affirmative action is a prime example of "fairness" gone wild. "Fairness" and "equality" are merely memes to be blasted long and loud until everybody believes it, whether it works or not. You might notice how only those deemed poor and lower classed bring up equality. Certainly there are wealthier deluded shills out there, but they behave in a manner inconsistent with the doctrine they preach. Notion of crime? Many people are desperate, but not everybody commits crimes. This goes to show that the agency of man can be misused. A bleak situation is not a license to do evil. Some people are greater and lesser than others in their potential and self control, truth can be cruel sometimes.
lol you sound a lot like a darwinist (no offense). I disagree with your first premise though that there is no such thing as a "win-win" situation. I can name an easy one right now. Anytime you buy something you are creating a win win situation as you get what you want, and the producer gets what he wants, both win. In healthcare, I see how this example obviously falls apart a bit, but I think that you are underestimating the power of a win-win situation. Yes, you are correct in that for the issue of healthcare, some people will have to be sacrificed. This is going to happen with any system though, there are always tradeoffs. I get what you are saying about overall socialization of healthcare, and I understand how it could turn into our public education system (where your zip code defines the kind of care you get just as your zip code may define the education quality you get). I agree that the biggest problem with the private sector is that they are so afraid of malpractice lawsuits, which I think should be much more rare than they are. If a doctor is intoxicated or something obvious like that, I can understand, but for making a mistake, I don't think a doctor should be sued (although I can see how it's easier to say that than actually do it. If I were in the situation, I would probably think differently). It also causes doctors to spend a TON of unnecessary money on tests that aren't really needed just to save their asses from being sued. The problem with this is, again, vague laws that we have. What constitutes a "mistake"? What should the penalty be for making a mistake? Punitive damages are one of the dumbest things in the world to me, and the fact that they are given to the "victims" in any case is absurd to me, it just makes people push harder for higher penalties. Anyways, it is my belief that there is such thing as a win-win situation (I'm a math major, so it's hard for me to believe that a problem doesn't have a solution), and there is some way for everybody to win, even in healthcare. I don't know what it is, but I'll figure it out someday. Anyways, you make some excellent points, but I've gotta go to class now lol
Understandable, but incorrect, non taken. Yes, I was referring only to health care. Others cases as you mentioned it obviously applies. Tort reform is a dire need for this country. Making a living by chasing ambulances is petty. Math major? Makes perfect sense now, they use logic habitually and thus, can be reasoned with when truth is presented to them. Soft science majors? Well a lost cause is a lost cause. Cheers.
I'm not a big fan of how they did this I would have has one universal basic medical insurance package all companies had to offer paid for from a simple payroll or health care tax of 8% of your income, regardless of income $1 or $1 billion. And companies get paid for that. Then they could make a profit only on added elective extras over that say more coverage for alternative medicine which likely would not be covered in this they could just break even on the government plan. This would take elements of the British and Swiss health care systems. And there might be (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing from the wealthy but since all would pay in the same amount based on their incomes and be the same insurance for everyone a good basic plan it would be more tolerable and as a tax be completely constitutional. But we got Obamacare and so have to live with it, unless its overturned in court or repealed neither seems at all likely anytime soon.
Well, I wish them luck in implementing it fully in America. Even states are saying they won't build the exchanges. Of course the amount of credibility of that claim remains to be seen. People here won't do this without a lot of kicking, screaming, dodging, and perhaps some killing. Won't be pretty regardless.
That was never a thing. That was rightwing distortion of language that was in the House's bills that required real-time communication between your insurance company and your health care provider. That way they could determine with certainty right at the point of care what your out-of-pocket responsibility is and what your insurer is going to pay for.
If you want to know the truth about what PPACA is going to cost patients, insured's, doctors, hospitals and taxpayers; read my previous posts on "health care". Married to a Doc and have worked in all facets of Health Care Administration including various consulting positions.
