Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Weak retort.

Personally imposed moral obligation and government mandated fiscal obligation are not one in the same.

So should I be financially obligated to take care of a person who knowingly participated in a high risk activity AND knowingly accepted the responsibility of those actions (remember the waiver?) simply because they didn't take on the personal responsibility of planning for the possibility of an accident?

You want me to pay for health insurance for someone else. Great. Can I get them a latte' as well?

so if we see YOU screw yourself into the ground we should just throw a cell phone onto YOUR carcass and say ' hey, call your insurance company, I'm sure you planned all this out' and walk away ?

according to you we have NO responsibility at all and can happily watch you croak while we sip the latte's we pay for.

Absolutely Correct. I have NO personal responsibility fix to someone elses problem. HOWEVER, I can CHOOSE to assist by focusing my practice on that population. I can CHOOSE to assist by donating to inner city hospitals. I can CHOOSE to assist by stopping and asking people if they need help. OR I can CHOOSE to sip my latte that I bought with money that I made. I don't want the government telling me to buy EVERYONE a latte. I don't want the government telling me to bail everyone out of jail. I don't want the government telling me to take care of every bad decision made by someone in a moment of passion.

I help because I feel it's the right thing to do. Some people don't.

I don't want the government telling us we HAVE TO.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

You may never use Yosemite - but you pay for its maintenance. You may never use I-80 in Wyoming, but you pay for that as well. You may never use flight following, but you still pay for ATC.

I think all those things should be supported by user fees from those who actually use them.

Saying "well, we already do things you think are wrong, so what's one more thing?" isn't a very compelling argument.

We should extend the "pay for service" idea to other areas of the commons.

Instead of paying taxes and having a police department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. A 911 call should be billed at the true cost. A police response in a non-emergency situation can be billed in six minute increments.

Instead of paying taxes and having a fire department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. An emergency call because your place is on fire = have your credit card ready when you call.

Instead of paying taxes and having public roads available for use by all, people who drive and use the roads should pay as they go. A transponder linked directly to your bank account would work fine. Twenty five cents a mile sounds fair.

These are examples of the "commons" that are paid for by taxes. If the base level of services provided by the commons do not meet your needs, you can pay for a higher level of service. You can hire a private security company to protect you and yours. You can hire a private fire-fighting company to protect you and yours. In some parts of the country you can pay and use privately owned roads to avoid traffic. Yosemite is an example of the "commons". So is Everglades National Park. The commons are not operated with the intent of making a profit.

We, the USA, need to make the change as a society to the idea that a basic level of medical care is part of the commons. That is what every other first world country has done. Why are we lagging? Ignorance, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

The insurance companies are not going to give up hundreds of BILLIONS in parasitic profits. They'll do everything they can to convince the sheeple to keep the status quo. Scary anecdotes about "socialized medicine", you bet. Statistics warped to hide the cost of overhead and profit that is raked off the top of each health care dollar, absolutely. Gullible dittoheads spouting the party line, we got that right here.

Get a clue, folks. The health care disaster is part of the economic mess we are in. We can't keep going as we are. The system is broken.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

The insurance companies are not going to give up hundreds of BILLIONS in parasitic profits.

Speaking of spouting the party line, Comrade Funjumper, there's that "parasitic profits" phrase again. I'll ask you, as well: Do you find the concept of profits so offensive in regards to other businesses?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

We should extend the "pay for service" idea to other areas of the commons.

Instead of paying taxes and having a police department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. A 911 call should be billed at the true cost. A police response in a non-emergency situation can be billed in six minute increments.

Instead of paying taxes and having a fire department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. An emergency call because your place is on fire = have your credit card ready when you call.

Instead of paying taxes and having public roads available for use by all, people who drive and use the roads should pay as they go. A transponder linked directly to your bank account would work fine. Twenty five cents a mile sounds fair.

I realize that you are probably not serious, but I totally agree with you.

Local services should be supported by user fees. Some level of property tax levy for fire service might be acceptable, but expecting people who call 911 in a non-emergency situation ought to be billed.

I know that I've personally paid for a rescue from SAR after a 911 call, and I carry insurance that covers me for that, in case it happens again. Why on earth should I expect you to pay for my transport after a BASE jumping accident?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Do you find the concept of profits so offensive in regards to other businesses?

The answer to this question, which I'm sure you know, is that it depends on who is pocketing the profits. If it's the UAW? Then profits are ok.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Weak retort.

Personally imposed moral obligation and government mandated fiscal obligation are not one in the same.

So should I be financially obligated to take care of a person who knowingly participated in a high risk activity AND knowingly accepted the responsibility of those actions (remember the waiver?) simply because they didn't take on the personal responsibility of planning for the possibility of an accident?

You want me to pay for health insurance for someone else. Great. Can I get them a latte' as well?

so if we see YOU screw yourself into the ground we should just throw a cell phone onto YOUR carcass and say ' hey, call your insurance company, I'm sure you planned all this out' and walk away ?

according to you we have NO responsibility at all and can happily watch you croak while we sip the latte's we pay for.

Absolutely Correct. I have NO personal responsibility fix to someone elses problem. HOWEVER, I can CHOOSE to assist by focusing my practice on that population. I can CHOOSE to assist by donating to inner city hospitals. I can CHOOSE to assist by stopping and asking people if they need help. OR I can CHOOSE to sip my latte that I bought with money that I made. I don't want the government telling me to buy EVERYONE a latte. I don't want the government telling me to bail everyone out of jail. I don't want the government telling me to take care of every bad decision made by someone in a moment of passion.

I help because I feel it's the right thing to do. Some people don't.

I don't want the government telling us we HAVE TO.

Couldn't have said it better.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,008]

>So should I be financially obligated to take care of a person . . .

Well, let me ask you more directly, then.

You see a skydiver land hard, break at least their femurs and probably their back. It's someone you know fairly well, and have jumped with before - they do video at your DZ for a living. They have told you clearly that they have no insurance and no way to pay for medical care when they get hurt. Their plan is to not get hurt - and if they do, to simply not pay.

You get there first and help however you can; you're the most qualified first responder on the DZ at the time. Do you call 911?

[pirana 0]

Quote

don't get me wrong - I am/was not a fan of the stimulus package. I am a fan of government run, single payer, nationalized health care.

Reminds me of something I heard during the debates the last time these issues got serious discussion.

One of the anti-insurance extremists was complaining because the market in our state was essentially divided up amongst three big players. They were whining there was not enough competition. That same debate they were crooning the benefits of a single payer, non-competitive, state run, mandated plan.

The line for that day was "So three is not enough, but 1 is just right?"

I think we are seeing a lot of emotionally driven responses because of how people are impacted anecdotally by the flaws the system does have. I empathize with people's particular pains, but what they say is usually aimed at satisfying their emotion of feeling screwed, versus an objective and well informed analysis of the possible solutions to the big picture.

Elimination of all competitive influences would be very bad for the cost of health care.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[justinb138 0]

Quote

We should extend the "pay for service" idea to other areas of the commons.

Quote

Instead of paying taxes and having a police department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. A 911 call should be billed at the true cost. A police response in a non-emergency situation can be billed in six minute increments.

If this was the case, do you think people would take more responsibility about their own safety? Would people be calling 911 if someone messed up their cheeseburger? I could see the cost of something like this being paid for by a homeowners insurance policy or something similar.

Quote

Instead of paying taxes and having a fire department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. An emergency call because your place is on fire = have your credit card ready when you call.

Again, this is something that'd probably end up being covered in an insurance policy. What happens if you need an ambulance in the current system?

Quote

Instead of paying taxes and having public roads available for use by all, people who drive and use the roads should pay as they go. A transponder linked directly to your bank account would work fine. Twenty five cents a mile sounds fair.

There already are toll roads, and they work just fine. People already pay a federal tax of $.18/gal and a state tax averaging $.32/gal, so one could argue that this is already happening.

Quote

The commons are not operated with the intent of making a profit.

And because of that they have no vested interest in controlling their costs or providing a high level or value or service. If they perform poorly or piss people off, people don't have the option to not pay them - they're not going anywhere.

Quote

We, the USA, need to make the change as a society to the idea that a basic level of medical care is part of the commons. That is what every other first world country has done. Why are we lagging? Ignorance, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

No, we need to return to the idea that one's life is their own responsibility.

Quote

The insurance companies are not going to give up hundreds of BILLIONS in parasitic profits. They'll do everything they can to convince the sheeple to keep the status quo. Scary anecdotes about "socialized medicine", you bet. Statistics warped to hide the cost of overhead and profit that is raked off the top of each health care dollar, absolutely. Gullible dittoheads spouting the party line, we got that right here. Get a clue, folks. The health care disaster is part of the economic mess we are in. We can't keep going as we are. The system is broken.

The system is broken, and the government has done nothing but make it worse.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The yahoos we are electing ARE the government. And you want these same yahoos to come up with a plan for health care.

"Let's give Bobby the car keys. He's wrecked every car he's had before, but he knows how important this car is. What? No. Bobby wouldn't raid the liquor cabinet, either. Especially not before driving. Yes, I know he's a habitual drunk driver. But he's serious this time."

Hey, it worked for Frogman Ted of the Chappaquiddick...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

jam the rich, they got money because the tax code favors them (they paid for that, which is why it's unlikel;y we'll see that change)

Yeah, like the pro ball team owner that just moved from NY state to Florida due to the excessive taxes... forgot about that part, didn't you?

"Rob the rich to feed the poor, until there are no rich no more" - what are you going to do after you drain that well, hmmm?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

........
And I'm condeming the whole thing because it's not an improvement on the current system, it's not a fix for anything, it's just throwing money at the problem. It'd be a system that not only allows for abuse, but doesn't provide any real incentive not to abuse it.
.....

please, please enlighten me on how you can abuse a system where
A. you are ill
B. you go to a doctor
C. he helps you

and you pay nothing, beyond the taxes you pay anyway ???

I can't wait to hear how this abuse is going to happen ...

That would be the same system where the guy that created it said "it's in crisis" and is now promoting private insurance, yes?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

We should extend the "pay for service" idea to other areas of the commons.

Instead of paying taxes and having a police department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. A 911 call should be billed at the true cost. A police response in a non-emergency situation can be billed in six minute increments.

Instead of paying taxes and having a fire department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. An emergency call because your place is on fire = have your credit card ready when you call.

Instead of paying taxes and having public roads available for use by all, people who drive and use the roads should pay as they go. A transponder linked directly to your bank account would work fine. Twenty five cents a mile sounds fair.

I realize that you are probably not serious, but I totally agree with you.

Local services should be supported by user fees. Some level of property tax levy for fire service might be acceptable, but expecting people who call 911 in a non-emergency situation ought to be billed.

I know that I've personally paid for a rescue from SAR after a 911 call, and I carry insurance that covers me for that, in case it happens again. Why on earth should I expect you to pay for my transport after a BASE jumping accident?

And there is a primary reason why "bundled" services is a bad idea: Abuse of "free" services.

Pay per use fees can work for all things. It just requires more oversight and enforcement.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[TomAiello 26]

There is a huge difference between being forced to help and deciding to.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

We should extend the "pay for service" idea to other areas of the commons.

Quote

Instead of paying taxes and having a police department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. A 911 call should be billed at the true cost. A police response in a non-emergency situation can be billed in six minute increments.

If this was the case, do you think people would take more responsibility about their own safety? Would people be calling 911 if someone messed up their cheeseburger? I could see the cost of something like this being paid for by a homeowners insurance policy or something similar.

Quote

Instead of paying taxes and having a fire department available at no direct charge, people who actually use their services can pay as they go. An emergency call because your place is on fire = have your credit card ready when you call.

Again, this is something that'd probably end up being covered in an insurance policy. What happens if you need an ambulance in the current system?

If these services were covered by an insurance policy, so be it. One could choose a policy if they wanted to that didn't.

Even if it was covered, a call to 911 would most likely be a claim, so that would cut down on them.

Quote

Quote

The commons are not operated with the intent of making a profit.

And because of that they have no vested interest in controlling their costs or providing a high level or value or service. If they perform poorly or piss people off, people don't have the option to not pay them - they're not going anywhere.

+1

Quote

Quote

No, we need to return to the idea that one's life is their own responsibility.

I'll only add "and mean it." We tell people and companies and countries that but bail them out continuously. Sorta like being that overprotective mother that never lets her child fail growing up thinking she's doing "what's best."

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,008]

>There is a huge difference between being forced to help and deciding to.

Absolutely.

So what would you do in that situation? Would you call 911?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

And free markets are the way to go. Everyone that invested in Enron, Madoff, did so by their own choice. These companies were a problem; the market corrected the problem and they're no longer in business.

tell that to the employees (who thought they were working for a reputable company) and the retirees who had their life savings wiped out because

People keep relearning why it is common practice not to have more than 20% of your worth tied to the same company that pays you a salary. It's a stupid level of non diversification. Only 8-9 years ago in the dotcom, this problem was quite common, and the Enron employees who didn't heed it deserve only limited sympathy, particularly since their stock run up was at the expense of millions of electricity users in states like CA.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

These are examples of the "commons" that are paid for by taxes.

There are some "commons" where I believe it is inefficient and unfeasible to use private tolls for their use. And because such things have been part of the role of government since the founding of this country, I don't believe that it operates in the realm of things that the government should not be doing.

Such things as roads, police, fire, etc. On the other hand, these departments DO bill for using them. Let's say police respond to an alarm at your business that turns out to be false. They'll warn you and bill you for the next one.

Let's say your house catches fire. Yep - fire departments can and have billed homeowners for it.

A fuel tax to pay for roads is great. (Personally, I'd like to see bicycles have some fee attached, as well - they use them, too.) Air traffic control? Yes, it would be necessary because they have a tendency to keep aircraft pieces and corpses off of my lawn.

Quote

We, the USA, need to make the change as a society to the idea that a basic level of medical care is part of the commons.

First thing - we don't "need" to do anything. "I think that we should treat basic medical care as a commons" is a much easier statement to handle. But for someone like me - inherently anti-authoritaran - such a thing would embitter me.

Secondly - medical care is not a commons. Doing so would suggest that food and shelter are commons. Water is a commons. Medication is a commons. Vehicles and television and the internet - commons.

Quote

That is what every other first world country has done.

Doing it because every other country does it is not doesn't make it good.

Quote

Why are we lagging? Ignorance, fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Because despite the good that this brings to many, many others will be harmed from this. Doing something for the public good, doing what is best for America, etc., it a double edged sword. We saw this with the last Administration, who did lots of things with substantial public support that it claimed was for the best, for the good of America, etc.

It was good for some and harmful to many others.

Any policy decision has this effect. And make no mistakes, I will lose something I had if this goes through.

Quote

The insurance companies are not going to give up hundreds of BILLIONS in parasitic profits.

Nor will the government give up hundreds of billions in revenue. Nor will a government, which by its nature seeks to govern, seek to skip an opportunity to govern something else.

Quote

They'll do everything they can to convince the sheeple to keep the status quo.

Am I a member of the "sheeple?" Or am I someone who stands to lose something where others gain FROM my loss?

Have you bothered to look at things from the perspective of people like me? Of my desire - desperate desire - to take care of my home? Myself? My kids? My wife? Of my desire to have these choices for which I worked so hard taken from me? And especially if I am called upon to indemnify others for what was taken from me?

Quote

Scary anecdotes about "socialized medicine", you bet. Statistics warped to hide the cost of overhead and profit that is raked off the top of each health care dollar, absolutely.

Perhaps. I chose my insurance company - the one that gave me the best price for the services I wanted. I could have gone less expensive for less service than I wanted. I did not. I could have gone more expensive for services I did not want. Nope. I compared offers and selected the ones that gave me what I wanted and then chose the one that gave the best price and convenience.

Do you advocate stipping these choices from me? Why is it that you would have such disdain for me and my kids that taking my choices away is good?

Money off the top at the top? Yes, for what my company did for me, I believe they should be compensated.

Also note: as much as there are allegations of skewing statistics, those who favor socialized medicine are remarkably mum on providing details.

See this: http://www.herndonalliance.org/pdf/messaging-value_of_strong_public_role.pdf

The number one talking point of advocates for socialized medicine?

Quote

Avoid getting into the details: At this point, DO NOT get sucked into
debating the details of reform. Avoid policy details and speak to Americans in
the language of ‘the kitchen table’ - address their values, their interests and
the concerns they have for their families. For too long, the health care reform
community has gotten pulled into talking about the minutia of policy. But,
the American public does not relate to health care from a detailed policy
perspective. Aim your messaging for the heart – not the head. If your
message is not emotionally compelling – start again. A great example of this
is talking about the peace of mind that comes with knowing your child can see
their family doctor if the need arises – not talking about ‘SCHIP’

I will paraphrase. "By no means whatsoever tell people what we are going to do or how we are going to do it. We will lose support. We cannot gain support by saying what our program will do. Instead, only villification of what we have now and general puffery relating to socialized healthcare.

They will not discuss costs. Procedures. No discussion of details.

Does this not scare you? Does this not give you cause to pause?

Quote

Gullible dittoheads spouting the party line, we got that right here.

I resent that implication. I don't like Limbaugh one bit. Nor do I view myself as gullible. Instead, I see all positions, and despite my personal issues with the present system, the proposed cure seems to me to be far worse.

If you do not offer and cannot find details on how this would work, then you may ask yourself, "Am I falling for the snake oil?" It's a sales pitch with no details. SO you know not what you are going to get.

Right now, the emotion of, "The system is broken" is enough to ditch it for something entirely different. I have no problems with this. Instead, I merely recommend that the several million like-minded people who seek this change form your own health insurance company. Then you may ensure that the poor get treated, executives are not well compensated, etc.

Think about it - ther must be at least 50 million people out there willing to chip in a grand to form this new insurance company.

Nope. "Can't someone else do it? Tell the government to do it." Because nobody in their right mind would see a financial return on their investment. The company would go bankrupt quickly or offer lesser services.

Quote

The health care disaster is part of the economic mess we are in.

Yep. Let's give the next Republican president to power to decide what health care you'll get. No, thank you.

Quote

The system is broken.

Provide me with examples of why a social medicine system would not be broken.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ron 10]

so, your best argument is that you think it should happen.... So we can either go with you, or die fighting what we think is a bad idea that has not worked in other countries.

Care to discuss how many countries that had single payer systems are now moving away from them? Or would you rather just demand what you want and tell us we are all stupid for not going along?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A fuel tax to pay for roads is great. (Personally, I'd like to see bicycles have some fee attached, as well - they use them, too.)

How many million bicycles would it take to produce a pothole? They use the roads the way a plant uses a granite face.

Since virtually all bicyclists own cars as well, they pay that extra nickel in costs when they buy their gas.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Care to discuss how many countries that had single payer systems are now moving away from them?

list them.....

[Ron 10]

how about starting with Canada that had to be sued by it's citizens to allow them to have private health care?

Or you could start with England that is changing over some public to private hospitals since they are trying to reduce costs and increase care.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[tkhayes 348]

wow, someone SUED someone over health care? If that was a reason to shut down the system in Canada, then..........?


besides all that, in earlier posts, I already acknowledged that a mixed system of private and public care would probably work - and that many services in Canada probably SHOULD be privatized. Finland has a system like that.

We already have a 'dual system' in Canada. Those that can afford it already go to the USA, write a check and pay for it. Kind of like here in the USA. Those that can afford it - get it. Those that can't, don't (quite often)

You remember Phantom - he died. He had chronic issues and with no health insurance, he did not get the treatment he needed. He DIED - in the USA, because he had no insurance and therefore no specialist was ever going to see him. All he could get was ER treatment, which was no good for his condition.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

We already have a 'dual system' in Canada. Those that can afford it already go to the USA, write a check and pay for it.

That's supposed to make us want a Canadian style system?

People there have poor enough care that they go to another country to seek care if they are able to.

If that's not an indictment of the Canadian system, I don't know what is.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[tkhayes 348]

You are forgetting the most basic premise -

EVERYONE in Canada gets decent healthcare. NO ONE in Canada is willing to give that up and go to a private system.

A lot of people complain about health care in Canada. A lot of people complain about health care in the USA.

People die in Canada waiting for treatment. People die in the USA waiting for treatment.

Canada treats cancer and has a good survivor rate. The USA treats cancer and has a good survivor rate.

Canada spends LESS on healthcare than in the USA. You and I are already paying for those that do not have insurance through higher premiums. If everyone paid through income taxes, then most of us would pay LESS than we are paying now.

No one in Canada is ever bankrupted because they could not afford to pay their medical bills.

that does not happen in the USA. I have already stated my case in previous posts, you should read them so I do not have to repeat myself.

A program that provides DECENT healthcare for all is better than a program that provides NO healthcare for many, or a system that causes you to lose your life's savings just because you fell down the stairs. Or got hit by a car, or just plain got sick.

Yes, ER room care in the USA is available for everyone - that care only helps SOME of those people that go there. It provides little help to those with chronic conditions. (Phantom only got symptomatic treatment and got sent home)

In Canada, Phantom would have seen a specialist, he would have seen a regular doctor. He would have received treatment because his condition was worsening and was chronic.

And yes, the guy who was not 'chronic' might have had to wait behind him.

It cracks me up how when I post a list of reasons supporting it, that Ron and you and Neal all take ONE LINE, one SNIPPET, then dismiss the validity of an ENTIRE MEDICAL SYSTEM based on that one snippet.

narrow minded thinking.