- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Hmmm... what could this thread be about. Could it be health care?
Push poll is pushy.
OC, if you're so against paying other people's health care costs, I assume you are against the subsidies in the health care bill?
Not to mention the public option/single payer?
Hmmm... what could this thread be about. Could it be health care?
Pssh, it's about formula 1 race cars, come in to the 21st century. :2razz:
Indeed. If you can't figure that out, god help you.
What I don't get is this notion that people think there is a middle ground.
As with many polls that try to attack an issue as complex as this one, yours creates a false dichotomy. The problem is in the word "refuse". Why did you choose that word rather than the word "don't" or "can't"?
Describe were the poll is wrong. Either we allow people not to partake and therefore be forced to pay for their costs, or we force them to pay for their costs. There is no middle ground here.
To a degree yes. However, at least the subsidies get people on board into the system.
A single payer is not inherently a bad idea. Single payer isn't related to my concern here about people not paying for their costs. As for a public option, I don't like it from that position, but I see it could be rather useful in forcing insurance to actually compete. You know, actually spend more money rather then funnel profits into investments that are unrelated to their actual practice? There's a reason on the cash flow statement of many insurance providers, there's a big inflow and outflow in investing activities. Insurance profits are much higher when you account for money they are using to buy securities.
There's lots of middle ground. Not too long ago nobody had insurance; everyone payed out of their own pockets.
That's really the only way to make sure that absolutely everyone pays for their own health care costs, because the very nature of insurance is paying for other people's costs - risk sharing. Even if there were no uninsured people at all, there would still be those who don't need very much health care paying for the costs of those who do via premiums (especially if insurers are forced to cover those with pre-existing conditions).
I remember when the whole the-insured-pay-for-the-costs-of-the-uninsured thing was brought into being as an issue, and quickly ceased to be one, and I think that this is exactly why. It looks mighty hypocritical to say that people should have to pay for their own health care, and then support premiums and a public option and a single payer system.
Except that you are discussing a period in which average health care didn't eat entire pay checks at once. Essentially you comparing apples with oranges. Back in Roman times.....
And I realize that. Are you going to address my actual point now?
Presumably not American treasury security's eh?
What point?
Your point that in times inapplicable to now people could pay for their costs?
What kind of point is that?
Okay, back in Greece....
Your post is irrelevant.
I wouldn't know about such things. I live in the 24th Century. I'm just visiting, here. :2razz:
From a personal responsibility angle, it is wrong to force those who will to cover the costs of those who won't while absolving those who won't of any responsibility.
Hell, we've been doing that for around 40-50 years now. It's certainly not a new concept in this country. I agree with what you're saying, but welfare is a cornerstone of our society these days.
Would you rather people be forced to pay for the costs they incur or you be forced to pay for those who refuse to cover their own costs?
You missed my point, which is that as long as insurance exists (and I'm not saying that it shouldn't exist), people are going to pay for other people's health care costs. This is what insurance is. So saying that mandating people to buy insurance is the only way to stop people from paying for the health care costs of others is false. Even if such a mandate existed, insured people who need little health care will be paying for the health care of insured people who need more. In fact, forcing people to buy insurance will create an even greater amount of paying for the health care of others, since healthy people who chose not to have insurance will be forced to have insurance to pay for the health care of those who need it more badly.
We (the US) recently passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it. It was passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, and signed by a president that also is exempt from it, hasn't read it, and who smokes. It is paid for with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. Is there a problem?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?