To those changing their mind's on Obama.

Your premise that care should be denied those who cannot afford it is sickening, and even if you are heartless enough not to mind wading through dying people on the curb of every hospital the majority of society won't accept that. So, since denying care became untenably selfish around the invention of the car (and even more so in the last sixty years as income disparity has increased exponentially) lets move forward to finding the most effective method of providing care.
 
A few links about Obama's plan and why government funded/controlled health care isn't such a fancy idea.

Why Obama's current plan can't work

http://mises.org/story/3543

Government funded Health Information Tech failing

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-27-va-scraps-pcs_x.htm\

VA/Walter Reed scandal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html

Medicares already massive deficits

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7053462/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/barack-obama/obama-says-medicare-and-medicaid-are-largest-defic/

Governments inherent inability to accurately direct capital, specifically for health care

http://mises.org/story/3428

It's not hard to figure out, Government subsidized health care like medicare and medicaid greatly increase demand and frequency of use for health care. As demand rises so do costs its very very simple.

 
I'm not saying that they should be denied care straight out if they cannot pay for it themselves. There are many hospitals that are run by church's or charities that I'm sure would provide free care to those in need and I would be more than happy to make contributions to those organizations. But the fact stands that you don't have the right to a doctor and if you can't pay for it because of your life decisions (as i said before the most disadvantaged should be covered) and no one is willing to treat you for free then the sad reality is that you will die. It isn't selfish on my part if that happens, especially if I am giving generously to private entities that serve those who can't afford it. What is extremely selfish is that people assume that they have a right to my money because they need it. Sure they could ask me kindly for a donation for a procedure and I would be more than happy to assist but they assume that they have an inherent right to my money and that the government should take that money using force and give it to them.
 
you're totally missing the point that preventative care is BUTT-LOADS cheaper than reactionary care

The highest burden on the US' medical community is chronic conditions, diabetes and heart disease are just two easily preventable diseases that when let go, turn into expense monsters.

I understand concerns about the scandal at walter reed, however, there are also terrible stories in the private sector, not to mention the awful practices of HMO's refusing to cover "pre-existing" conditions.

I saw some statistic that was like 80% of all bankruptcies in the US are caused by medical expenses, and 70% of the those people had insurance. What we have right now DOESN'T take care of people, it already costs way too much, out of pocket, and the states. We're paying more for less, and it is time we reform.

There are cons to every side of a plan, however, with a government run plan, we are aiming to make fundamental changes that address the root of our cost problems. It does look expensive when you first write down the need for reform, but a long run crunch of the numbers show an increase in the quality of care, and a decrease in the number of patients seeking treatment for chronic conditions, resulting in much lower costs.

Right now we're fucked either way, it's our future that we're making a change for, and the arguments against a public plan do not address the sustainability of that future.
 
I will reply about energy. I did not look through any of the thread so I am not sure if it has been said/discussed. America needs a new power grid. Any house or business generating more solar energy than required cannot be stored due to the old power grid. However, with a new grid we would be able to store more energy. A bill should be passed requiring new houses to use rooftop solar panels. That would be a very efficient option and would spark the whole green idea. We are no where near going green. As Thomas Friedman said in a lecture I went to: "We are not in a green revolution until green isn't green, it's normal."
 
Diabetes and Heart Disease are two conditions that are very preventable and the knowledge of how to prevent them is pretty wide spread, eat right and exorcise. I can take those two simple actions to avoid getting those diseases and I can also take different steps to reduce my risk factor for other diseases by not smoking tabacco and not eating certain things or being in contact with certain things like radiation of asbestos. I can also reduce my risk of having accidental health emergencies like breaking my back or neck by not engaging in risky activities that could result in those conditions. These are all personal choices that I and everyone else can make every day. So how does it all the sudden become my responsibility to pay to for someone elses care when they not only neglected to make the right choices regarding their health but they also neglected to make the right choices regarding their finances. These are personal decisions that should (and in the real world do) have personal consequinces. By providing free health care for people me are not encouriging them to make reponsible decisions about their health, in fact we are telling them that they can fuck themselves up to no end and no matter what.

Instead I propose that people be responsible for their own bodies and that they make decisions about sort of diet they have and what activities they do based on how much money they have for medical care. If you have the cash set aside for open heart surgery then by all means order that second whopper with cheese it's your choice just don't ever ever expect me to pay for your bad decisions.

Maybe instead of having a flat screen tv, a newer car, cable or that trip to mexico people can decide that it is more important that they be able to live long healthy lives and save their money for life saving treatments and procedures that invovle very expensive machines and highly trained and specialized doctors.
 
Good idea but solar panels are nowhere near efficient enough yet. This article is from 2008, but I know that the efficiency hasn't gotten all that much better. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-panels-take-100-years-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html
Secondly, people need to allow these things to go through. SO many instance I know of where people (and politicians) cease the building of wind mills because they, "don't want to look at them[/i]". Going by that isn't going to get us anywhere. This happened off the coast of the cape and in vermont I believe on Magic Mountain.
 
I think you are misunderstanding the fundamental problem. I don't think there is a lot of argument that if a hobo or some other person that has nothing is OD'ing on heroin in an ER they are going to get treated for free, or if a poor mom brings her kid in having an allergy attack and has no insurance they aren't just going to be like, well fuck you should've bought insurance. Even republicans are okay with this, the big problem is the middle class people that put in 40 hour work weeks every week, and maybe own a home, maybe don't, pay their bills, contribute to society, but aren't provided benefits through their employer. I've gone without health care for a couple of years now until I got it through work, and let me tell you, just to have catastrophic coverage is like a hundred a month. So someone that doesn't make 50-60k a year individually has no chance at affording insurance. Then if you have kids, or a spouse that needs coverage too, you are fucked. A car accident or a serious flu could bankrupt you, straight up. If your idea is that every sick person should just die, well that would probably solve the problem eventually, but what kind of country do you want to live in? And don't give me the charity argument we all know thats bs.
 
100$ a month for catastrophic health insurance that sounds like a great deal, you know that there are a ton of cell phone plans that run for 100$ a month or more. Which would you rather have, an I Phone with its plan or the ability to be treat for a catastrophic illness or accident. Fuck my rent is way more than 100$ a month, at minimum wage it would only take 14 hours of work to obtain that sweet guarantee of medical coverage when you need it most.

Seriously if you make 50 to 60 K a year there is no reason that you couldn't pay for health insurance if its that important to you, you would have to just give up other less important luxuries that cost you money that you certainly don't need as much as healthcare. Lets take tv for example you can pay probably between 30-175$ a month on cable/satellite depending on what package you have but lets say that you pay 50$ a month for cable. Stop watching cable (tv is worthless anyway) and bam there is half of your monthly catastrophic payment right there. Or lets say you're looking to buy a car and you're trying to decide between a used car that would suit your needs for 10K or a similar car thats new for 20K, sure you may be able to afford the 20k car but why not buy the used one and save that 10K for medical coverage if thats what is important to you.

It's all about setting priorities, if staying alive a long time and being healthy is a priority then treat it like one and allocate as many of your resorces as possible towards it, don't just assume that someone else is going to foot the bill.

Staying healthy is all about making the right choices and if you don't make those right choices it is not my responsibility to help you with the burden of the consequences that you will face. As a compasionate individual I wouldn't mind helping someone who humbly requested my help, but helping someone who thinks they have a right to my money even though they had the opportunity to be healthy and aren't if bullshit.

Of course their are situations when people are incapible of making the choices that affect their health like children, the mentally handicaped, and those with genetic diseases. I have much campasion in my heart for them and they should be covered at any cost.
 
Yeah I don't disagree with this, I'm just saying it is a huge burden for people that don't make a lot of money to have to pay for health insurance out of pocket, and one that many people simply cannot do. For many people, the numbers just don't add up. I'm not saying I'm pissed that my catastrophic was 100 a month, it beats the shit out of a 30k emergency surgery, thats why I had it. But lets say I got pnuemonia with my catastrophic insurance. I'm a healthy guy, young, could probly fight it off if I went to the doctor, but my insurance says I gotta wait until I'm about to die to get covered, so I do. Then we are at the point that what could've been solved with like 300 bucks is now 5 grand in the hospital. This isn't a perfect example, but the point I'm trying to make is that there is an argument to be made that, since the taxpayer has to foot the bill for this shit all day long anyway, it might as well be done in the most cost effective way possible. Not that everyone should get a bunch of shit for free.
 
But that's my point, the taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill for any of this shit, you health is not my responsibility. If you get hella sick and you're to dumb to have a little money in the bank to go see a doctor with, you're fucking stupid. Just because you have Insurance doesn't mean it isn't prudent to have money aside for medical emergencies, like the one you illustrated.

I have no moral obligation to have my money forcibly taken from me and then given to another person it's as simple as that.
 
i agree there needs to be reform. but why must that include a government option?

what about a tax credit that would offset a portion of a families healthcare expenses?

what about allowing you to purchase coverage across state lines, and with less regulation. its funny i have coverage for drug rehab, why? i live in MN. and its part of whats mandated to be in my policy...

if the government is going to make the healthcare industry more competitive than why stop with healthcare? lets have a government option of walmart, or government gas stations, or even government car companies. (O SHIT:)
 
Have you ever read the preamble, homie?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I see that right there as good enough authorization for me...

 
i was listening to michael medved show the other day, and what you suggest is exactly what some want to push for, but it's getting lost in the thick of universal health care pushed by obama and co.

 
This is exactly it. Cut taxes, free up the insurance countries that are being chocked by all sorts of ridiculous regulation like not being able to buy across state lines.

Government paid for health care already exists and it's already a massive unfunded boondoggle that is a vampire on this nations economy.
 
where does it stop? lets raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour.

lets give every worker a 4 week paid vacation.

o yes, i find it HILARIOUS you use a document written by our founding fathers to justify more than likely taxing people to a level that has been unseen in our lifetime..

check my sig for a great little quote that might shed some light as to what one founding father felt on the subject of expending benevolence.
 
promote the general welfare does not mean to force individuals to pay for other individuals to have luxuries. It means to protect the private property of each individual so they can use it freely which promote the general welfare of our nations. Welfare in the preamble does not have the same meaning as welfare in its modern usage.
 
1176688410o_rly.jpg

 
You've got a fundamental flaw thinking that people have the option to go out and eat a healthy, and live a healthy life style. A majority of the people who are uninsured at the moment are eating fast food, and can't afford a membership at a gym. Yes, I understand that you see how it can seem like it's something they ought to have power over, but the fact of the matter is they do not.

Furthermore, when these uninsured people DO get heart disease or diabetes, YOU ARE PAYING FOR THEIR TRIP TO THE HOSPITAL ANYWAYS. Even more, you're paying more to fix them after they fuck up rather than helping them get the support they need to stay healthy in the first place. If you're going to be giving your money to the uninsured, you of all people want to be giving the least amount possible... which happens to be a universal, preventative care system.

See the bigger picture here, it's not like you have the option to take away the medicare/medicaid system that's been in place since the 60s.
 
now i am in NO WAY sticking up for yacht. BUT, yeah youre right, that pair of $20 tennis shoes i bought 3 years ago that i STILL wear. those really are out of peoples reach..

i dont know if i should be admitting this. haha but i was watching a documentary on homeless youth on MTV (i know i know) and the one girl was bitching that having a free meal at the soup kitchen disincentivized her to work.

and yes i understand poor people can not grill a Tbone like i ate tonight, but there are PLENTY of options besides BK and MD...

take fucking responsiblity.

i shit you not a fat kid i worked with breifly blamed society for his weight issue.. (you should have seen all the SHIT this kid ate at every break) moderation, physical activity, its not rocket science. but im a cold heartless bastard :)
 
We all just need to get off our lazy asses, learn more, work harder, and stop relying on the government to solve problems for us. Politicians are all essentially the same, and a cult of personality just blind people to that fact, especially inexperienced voters. I'm no anarchist (or a libertarian), but we all need to learn how to take care of ourselves and act responsibly without a hovering government pushing us everywhere.
 
Honestly, society is mostly to blame for obesity and diabetes. Why else would heart disease be the number one killer in america? Its because all our natural resources are gone. You have no choice but to eat the processed corn starch and soy products that the government subsidizes for you to get fat and die early from. In the old days, you could hunt. You could grow your own food. You could own land and rebuild your house from the trees that still existed if it burned down. Not anymore, the corporate fascists have taken all of that from the rightful owners- the people. We are forced into economic slavery, only distracted by consumerism and appeased to keep quiet about it by the majority that earn a "living wage" . The government has stood idly by while corporate interests have taken everything from us, so we are forced into this bullshit artificial survival that we cannot escape. Fuck personal responsibility, it doesn't exist anymore. Fuck the government and fuck big business, and fuck you too.
 
I understand your sentiment, but that seems about as hyperbolic as the right-wing pundits' predictions about socialized medicine. There are legitimate options for people without the means to pay for medical coverage...to put it in other terms, everyone needs food. Why should a person who works his hands to the bone and gets paid accordingly be forced to eat the same stuff as a person who fakes disability and survives on food stamps? Obviously this is an oversimplified, black-and-white hypothetical, but it's no more exaggerated than the stepping-over-sick-people scenario you provided. I don't think any government has the right to force charity from its citizens; if "society" wants to pay for the poor's medical coverage, they'll do it by choice, and it's nobody else's place to tell them they're wrong.
 
I move to stop arguing and get back to the totally inconsequential and way more fun topics we all know and love, on the grounds that none of us are changing any minds and we're just getting pissed off. Blame the robots, move on
 
One odd thing is this:

from NY times:

In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked

the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given

condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it

especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and

mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and

cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients.

So, our doctors try very hard to help us but we often don't listen. Empty calorie foods fill us more, for the money, than fresh healthy foods. Also, our sedentary lifestyle hurts us. Do a lot of us think that the american way is to live the laziest life possible?

And anyone who says they shouldn't have to pay for other people's medical bills will be saying something different laying in a hospital bed after being hit by a car.
 
yeah, you are probably right, i think im going to go drown my sorrows in another 12 pack, some chips, and a pack of twinkies.

let me guess you are a member of the collectivist libertarians? hehe

and yeah, youre right, eating atleast semi healthy is just so damn hard..

i mean shit, the life you described would have been sooooo much easier. ala personal responsibility. X10000.

thanks for that send off, i must have hit a nerve.
 
OP: I think you definitely make some valid points, and I agree with your central assertion that we as citizens of a democracy MUST make an effort to be informed and vote more on the strength of policy as opposed to charisma.
I'm copy and pasting my response to a similar thread because I think it's relevant here:
I think your estimation of the ratio (**NOTE: this sentence was in response to someone's statement that 90% of those that voted for Obama were entirely unsure as to why, vs. 10% that did**) is grossly over stated, BUT, I do agree with your overall sentiment; that being that most voters don't have the slightest idea as to why they actually vote the way they do.
What is true, is that Obama's campaign was incredibly successful in convincing a historically apathetic and uninvolved demo to vote. That's a good thing.
Whether you like the result or not, in a democracy, the more people that are engaged and invested, the better. Also, ALL young people should be thrilled with the 2008 election. The huge youth turnout will almost undoubtedly reshape the way in which campaigns are run, and most importantly, it will force politicians to begin to pander to young people. For far too long, the most powerful lobby in this country has been fucking Old People. Politicians literally fellate old people. Why? Because they vote, and they contribute money. Why do you think we've yet to see any real Social Security reform? Because to deny old people money, is to commit political suicide....nevermind the fact that it's bankrupting the country...I digress.

What I don't get—and this is not aimed at you specifically, but rather everyone who seems to constantly reference this "phenomenon"—is why people seem to think this ("this" meaning uninformed dummies decided an election) was NEW in the 2008 election.
Newsflash: Generally speaking, the electorate is largely uninformed about "their" candidate's policies, position on most issues, voting records, and all other tangible/objective criteria that would suggest his or her's relative qualification to hold office. Truthfully, to collect information about prospective candidates in order to make a truly responsible choice come Tuesday, is a LOT of work. What this means is that the overwhelming majority of people who show up come November tend to cast their votes on the basis of superficial nonsense, or on the strength of one or two issues—tops. In this case, the "superficial nonsense" happened to be some powerful rhetoric about "change" and that he, at least superficially, represented about as much a sharp contrast to Bush as imaginable.
To suggest that the "quality" of the voting majority that saw to Obama's victory is somehow inferior to any other previous majority—and thus the result is somehow invalid—is just stupid.
 
Fact: Fruits and Vegetables are cheaper than fast food and readily available all over the country

Fact: I work out all the time and have never once worked out in a gym

Fact: You don't have to have money to be in good shape and healthy, you just have to stop and think for a second and care about your health.

 
what other legitimate options? ER visits? these are still payed for by taxpayers and are extremely expensive.

I think that if the majority of the citizens of a republic believe providing health care to all to be the moral and correct decision, then it is totally legitimate to collect and spend revenue as needed. That's kind of the point of democratic government.
 
If you're going to go down in flames, make it a grand exit.
Photoshop Bishop simul-blowing Papa and JD, and make a thread in SG for the pic called "Wallisch's Pro Model for Scott - Pics!"
 
love you.
PM your boy so I can enjoy whatever it is before it's deleted.
P.S. I'll start the "Give drew. his account back Petition" thread ASAP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top