Obamacare

[PraetorianND]

So what of those that work in those industries? Should they provide the service for free as well as it's all in the name of the overall happiness and good of the mob...err....group?

Do we enslave certain jobs simply because we're better off as a whole? I mean, that would be the most beneficial...right?


My point, is that no one has any "right" to a service that is provided by another. At that point, you're infringing on the rights of the other person. What about them? This is why cost and trade is necessary as we'd all be slaves otherwise.

I have already explained many times that I am willing to pay MORE IN TAXES to offset the increased costs associated with healthcare. Why do you keep going back to this "free" healthcare idea? Nobody is saying that we're going to enslave anyone.

And yes we can say that people have a "right" to healthcare if we want. We can also say that people have a right to housing, and provide such housing through tax dollars. Or food, or spiritual freedom, or whatever we want. Whatever we think is a human right we can declare it such and protect it. If you don't believe me go read the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In fact, I'll make it easier for you:

Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

[PraetorianND]

And how can one truly pursue happiness in a Utilitarisim society?

By doing what's best for the most number of people..... That's the definition of utilitarianism...

 

[irishpat183]

But you're basing your entire argument on this false idea that people are DENIED ACCESS to health care.


They're not. So your argument doesn't hold water.

It's different if we told people "you can't get treated".

 

[Ndaccountant]

Uhhh yeah. But what if "what's doing best for the group" pisses you off?


How is that pursuing happiness?


Keep in mind our founding docs were written for the individual....

And what is good for the individual should be good for the masses. Outside of things like crime, most of your day to day actions are for the betterment of you and society. It's a matter of how you spin it.

 

[DSully1995]

And at the end of the day.....We insure over 80% of our population.

So for the sake of, say, 20 million outta 300 million...We're willing to turn over the system to government?

LIE

2010 Politifact lie of the year actually, its not a takeover, its a mandate to the use of private insurance companies.

I understand gov. skepticism but really dont see wwhat the gov will be DOING, other than dictate terms of acceptance, its not running the show.

 

[PraetorianND]

Uhhh yeah. But what if "what's doing best for the group" pisses you off?


How is that pursuing happiness?


Keep in mind our founding docs were written for the individual....

Irishpat..... I told you that I believe in Utilitarianism (go read the definition). You can ask me "how is that pursuing happiness" if you would like but I'm not going to answer that again.

I know what our founding docs say. They protect the individual, yes. Through the bill of rights (yes we have one of those). They also protect people (more than one person). We also live in a democracy where we allow the group to vote on what is best for that group.

 

[PraetorianND]

Yeah... that's not really accurate at all. I minored in philo, so trust me I understand the concept of utilitarianism even if I'm a couple years removed from writing papers.

First, there is no guarantee whatsoever that what the majority of people vote for is going to yield the most utility for the group... because it is a well accepted fact that following "correct" does not necessarily lead to the best outcome. For example, the majority of people could elect a treasurer for their club... and then the treasurer could steal all of their money and run to Mexico. Or a more apt example would be a law passing 51 votes to 49... while the people who voted in the majority get very little utility out of it (let's say 1 point) but the 49 are MUCH worse off for losing (let's say -10). Maybe a good illustration would be Jim Crow laws and things like that... they have a HUGE negative utility for the minority and minimal positive utility for the majority enacting them.

There are also many classic examples... like the problem of the commons and the prisoner's dilemma... that illustrate how even acting in a logically deductive way in your own best interest can lead to less utility for the group. So yeah...

In terms of voting. If a majority of people vote for something it most likely means that they think it is what is best for the collective and will produce the most overall happiness. Better?

 

[IrishLax]

Millions of people did not have health insurance that now do. You might not think that is horrific, but I'd be willing to be that they do. What kind of "tweaks" are going to ensure that all those people don't have to suffer needlessly when they become sick or get injured. Absolutely it was a horrific problem.

Disappointed you took time to respond to irishpat and not me!

 

[DSully1995]

The founding fathers spoke out against democracy in that sense, which is why the US is a republic, not a democracy, majority does not always rule.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

 

[PraetorianND]

This is also just a straightup misrepresentation of our Government and inaccurate statement. What you're describing is a classic democracy where the citizens actually vote on laws. This only happens on local levels (such as Question 7 in Maryland for those in my area).

We have a representative Government on the federal level. We don't vote for anything. People we send to Congress hypothetically vote in a way that best represents their constituents and that is all.

Obviously. However, if our representation does not vote how we like they do not get reelected and someone else who will vote how they want will be elected until they do not vote how the group wants. So yes, while you're correct that in most cases we do not vote for laws directly, we empower those who do and thus have a voice in the process.

 

[irishpat183]

LIE

2010 Politifact lie of the year actually, its not a takeover, its a mandate to the use of private insurance companies.

I understand gov. skepticism but really dont see wwhat the gov will be DOING, other than dictate terms of acceptance, its not running the show.

It's not a lie. I didn't say it's going to happen immediately.


But if you think the government is going to play ball and allow private insurance companies to compete with their product, you're kidding yourself.

Eventually, everyone will be getting their checkups at the post office. It's going to destroy the private insurance business.

 

[GoIrish41]

Disappointed you took time to respond to irishpat and not me!

Sorry to disappoint. It would have been the same post either way.

 

[PraetorianND]

Irishpat. Question. Do you think everyone should have access to healthcare?

It's a rhetorical question, the answer is yes. (or should be)

Actual question, what's the best way to get all of those people access to healthcare?

 

[IrishLax]

Sorry to disappoint. It would have been the same post either way.

That's even more disappointing. I made the point much better.

 

[PraetorianND]

Much closer. I think you need to amend that to "they think it is in their best self interest" or something to that effect.

I don't know of very many people who will vote for something that is going to substantially harm them or is otherwise not in their best interest because they think it's going to help their neighbors or some nameless person across the country or the general "collective." I'm sure there are a number of anecdotes/examples that might fly against that notion, but as a rule people very rarely act against their own interest to benefit another person.

I don't think so at all. Otherwise people wouldn't vote to ban gay marriage in droves because they aren't gay themselves and it has almost not impact on them. People often vote on things that are not in their best self interest and do so because they take a utilitarian perspective. I voted yes for a high speed rail system from SF to LA even though I would probably never use it. Why would I do that?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

In a perfect world everyone would have free healthcare, and the care we have would cure all diseases.

But we have to settle for the real world. That means that the government can't solve economic problems. It just can't. It doesn't create anything -- it only redistributes, perverts, and disincentivizes.

 

[PraetorianND]

In a perfect world everyone would have free healthcare, and the care we have would cure all diseases.

But we have to settle for the real world. That means that the government can't solve economic problems. It just can't. It doesn't create anything -- it only redistributes, perverts, and disincentivizes.

Nobody is saying we should have "free" healthcare. That's not what anyone is saying. Someone will have to pay for whatever healthcare is provided for anyone. All I'm saying is that if someone is not capable of paying for healthcare then WE (who are capable) should step up and help them pay for it because it's the right thing to do. That's what this whole entire thread boils down to.

If you disagree you disagree. But I personally think that we should help the less fortunate. I am willing to empower the government to collect money from most of the country to give to those who need the help so they don't die (and get preventative care) because they can't afford healthcare.

That's it.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

There's no such thing as the "selfless voter". If someone voted for something (say, gay marriage...) it just means that their warm fuzzies inside made them vote for it instead of against it.

Their vote is the evidence of what gives them utility. If it weren't they wouldn't have voted that way.

 

[PraetorianND]

I like your rail system example. You voted for it because you thought as you described... but also there was no substantial negative utility to you doing so. If you voted for the rail system even though they were going to have to build the track through your backyard... that would be a great counter-example. In fact it would be perfect. You would have supported a measure to benefit many even at substantial cost to yourself.

Kinda confused by your gay marriage example... isn't that an illustration of what I'm saying? A bunch of non-gays voting against something that would really help their neighbors because they aren't thinking with a collective utilitarian approach?

The rail system will result in higher taxes for me. i will pay more for education if it improves education in my state (will vote for either prop 30 or 38 in California).

You made the point that people vote in their "best self interest" The gay marriage example was used to counter that statement. Why do people vote for anything regarding gay marriage if they aren't they themselves gay? People vote on what they believe is best for the collective in many cases because otherwise they wouldn't vote on anything gay marriage related because it doesn't impact them.

 

[PraetorianND]

Your original question was much simpler -- "should everyone have access to healthcare". You didn't mention cost. Your original question was the question I was answering.

It's implied that healthcare costs money....

 

[PraetorianND]

The problem is not what the outcome is, but does the outcome change the problem? If people can't get health care, why can't they? Let's make efforts to fight the problem, not they symptom.

How?

 

[Kingbish01]

I don't like talking politics because it's a waste of time nobody is gonna change their views. Think of it like a Notre Dame fan turning a USC fan into an Irish fan. Not gonna happen. But here is my 2 cents anyways.

Our health care costs have risen, most years by double digit percentage points, for every one of the 7 years I have worked on the my companies budget. Every year, double digits. Regardless of claims or lack thereof. In other words, if we had one employee with serious health problems resulting in big bills, double digit increase. If we had a calamity free year with no serious big bill issues, double digit increase. Don't blame Obamacare, blame the greed of the insurance companies. How do you think BC/BS came to have $700B in reserve funds? How about the greed of the hospitals, doctors, and big pharma. We have 80+ employees and their families on our health care program. That makes us a small to medium employer.

I do know the states will receive 100% funding from the federal government for like 5 years to underwrite insurance plans for those without, then the percentage drops over time. Have to conclude taxation of those with insurance part of the misinformation campaign being waged by the right. I’m not stating fact here, just opinion.

I submit to you, if coverage for all results in some kind of impact to those of us with jobs and insurance, would you be unwilling to make some sort of sacrifice? There is always enough money for war, isn't there, no questions asked. I will end with I am Independent, but I feel like republicans are like Michigan fans they just make you hate them.

 

[PraetorianND]

Doesn't matter what I think...They do have access.

The best way?


Let me ask you....Have you ever been prevented care when you've entered a facility?

Fantastic evasion. You should run for office.

What do those people do when they have a $10,000 or $100,000 or $500,000 hospital bill sitting on their table?

 

[GoIrish41]

That's even more disappointing. I made the point much better.

You must be a late-comer to this thread. I would point you to post #53, where I sort of lay out my thesis on why I think the old system is garbage.

Without getting into my personal medical history too much, I could offer a personal experience when doctors nearly killed me and caused me to have emergency surgery because they insisted on a certain test. The old system was a racket. In other posts around that same time, you will see that I have suggestions about healthcare that would make the GOP's head explode. Feel free to go back and you might find more examples than you think of where people got screwed by the old system.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I actually don't mind if people want universal healthcare.

Just leave Texas out of it.

Democracy itself needs a "free market" of states that can experiment with different policy solutions -- where citizens aren't forced to live under the thumb of a single uniform policy. If universal healthcare is so great, citizens will vote with their feet.

 

[IrishLax]

You must be a late-comer to this thread. I would point you to post #53, where I sort of lay out my thesis on why I think the old system is garbage.

Without getting into my personal medical history too much, I could offer a personal experience when doctors nearly killed me and caused me to have emergency surgery because they insisted on a certain test. The old system was a racket. In other posts around that same time, you will see that I have suggestions about healthcare that would make the GOP's head explode. Feel free to go back and you might find more examples than you think of where people got screwed by the old system.

Don't really have time to go all the way back and read the pages, so I'll take your word for it. Thanks.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't like talking politics because it's a waste of time nobody is gonna change their views. Think of it like a Notre Dame fan turning a USC fan into an Irish fan. Not gonna happen. But here is my 2 cents anyways.

Our health care costs have risen, most years by double digit percentage points, for every one of the 7 years I have worked on the my companies budget. Every year, double digits. Regardless of claims or lack thereof. In other words, if we had one employee with serious health problems resulting in big bills, double digit increase. If we had a calamity free year with no serious big bill issues, double digit increase. Don't blame Obamacare, blame the greed of the insurance companies. How do you think BC/BS came to have $700B in reserve funds? How about the greed of the hospitals, doctors, and big pharma. We have 80+ employees and their families on our health care program. That makes us a small to medium employer.

I do know the states will receive 100% funding from the federal government for like 5 years to underwrite insurance plans for those without, then the percentage drops over time. Have to conclude taxation of those with insurance part of the misinformation campaign being waged by the right. I’m not stating fact here, just opinion.

I submit to you, if coverage for all results in some kind of impact to those of us with jobs and insurance, would you be unwilling to make some sort of sacrifice? There is always enough money for war, isn't there, no questions asked. I will end with I am Independent, but I feel like republicans are like Michigan fans they just make you hate them.

This is a great post. Greed is what is wrong with healthcare -- plain and simple.

 

[Woneone]

Doesn't matter what I think...They do have access.

The best way?


Let me ask you....Have you ever been prevented care when you've entered a facility?

Seeing this brings up an interesting (and somewhat ironic) point.

Reagan got this passed in 1986 with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

Basically saying, "You don't need insurance, we'll treat you regardless."

People argue about it inflating health care costs, insurance costs, ect.

Now, we're requiring individuals to have health insurance.

Basically saying, "Everyone needs insurance so we can treat them."

People argue about it inflating health care costs, insurance costs, ect.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

 

[PraetorianND]

Thanks you! LOL


They pay the bill. And if they can't, they don't.


I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm giving you straight answers.

What you WANT me to say is: YES!!!! EVERYONE DESERVES AND IS ENTITLED TO HEALTH CARE AND ALL IT'S BENEFITS!

But I just can't do it.

I just think it's sad that you trust the government so little that you refuse to allow them to collect what you have plenty of and give to people who are literally DYING because they can't afford care.

Now you're going to tell me, well they can just go into a clinic and get care and then not pay their bill.

But let's think rationally about this, people who can't afford to eat and pay for housing aren't going to go to the Dr for a checkup (because of the cost). So they wait and wait until they have stage 4 cancer and then they go in when they are about to die. When this happens there is oftentimes little the Dr can do to help that person. IF that person had healthcare they could have found out about the cancer before it was too late.

I see this as a good thing.

 

[irishpat183]

You must be a late-comer to this thread. I would point you to post #53, where I sort of lay out my thesis on why I think the old system is garbage.

Without getting into my personal medical history too much, I could offer a personal experience when doctors nearly killed me and caused me to have emergency surgery because they insisted on a certain test. The old system was a racket. In other posts around that same time, you will see that I have suggestions about healthcare that would make the GOP's head explode. Feel free to go back and you might find more examples than you think of where people got screwed by the old system.

I would love to hear those suggestions. I'm all for reform. It does need tweaking.

How many people are on this thread again? Because I'm sure I could round up some people that are positive on this system.

Say we find some cancer survivors and ask them what they think about advancements in medicine and the fact that they caught that cancer? Wonder what they think?

See, you can find both. I understand some people have gotten a bad shake. but helath care is like anyother industry...just because me and 10 people have had a bad experience at a burger joint, doesn't mean that they shoudl shut down the entire industry and hand over the keys to the guy running the auto shop.