- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 40
Public Option, where do you stand?
- Thread starter xmsr3
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,495
- Reaction score
- 4,911
Wait, can afford insurance but can't pay bills? Do you mean "wont" pay bills? See I agree with punishment for theft which is what that basically is, but you dont stop theft by making everyone purchase everything. Thats asinine. Its not really about people not paying their bills, but we can disagree.
It really boils down to a major difference in thinking. I think we as individuals should be responsible for our failings and our successes. I dont think the government "owes" us anything including health insurance (health insurance =/= health care btw). However, others believe the government has some responsibility to support everyone even if they make stupid decisions. I tend to see that as cleansing of the gene pool, but thats just me. Some tend to think the government should step in and protect everyone from others, I don't agree. I think the government should "pop the teet out their mouths and let them grow up". (Major Pain is my hero).
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 40
Wait a minute...I am getting confused with all the rhetoric.
Hospitals are greedy SOBs who are only interested in profit and don't care about helping people so we write a law that makes it illegal for hospitals to turn away people who don't have insurance.
Now that people can get "free" care without having insurance, we need to force people to buy insurance so that the (formerly greedy SOB) hospitals can get at least some of their money.
Some people are too high risk for insurance companies to insure, so we write another law force insurance companies to provide them with insurance anyway.
Since this would drastically increase the cost of insurance premiums we need to create a government run health insurance plan that gives limitless payouts and is subsidized by taxpayers.
Now that people are forced to buy insurance, and since private insurance premiums are sky high, people flock to the public option. The government cannot maintain the cost, and begins cutting payments to providers/imposing a spending cap/limiting the number of physicians/imposing mandates on specific procedures. All so the poor hospitals can get their money that they were getting just fine before the first law (EMTALA) was passed?
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,922
- Reaction score
- 1,517
So you don't see how anyone could oppose it, then give two perfectly logical reasons why someone would oppose it. 😕
I oppose it because it will decrease physician compensation and autonomy, be excessively costly and beuraucratic (as anything govt run), and will worsen the deficit despite claims of budget neutrality. I simply don't believe the current proposals to be sustainable over the long term, nor do I believe they will do anything to improve "access" or "quality".
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 677
- Reaction score
- 2
just curious, how do you guys educate yourself with all this information? the news? the internet? your parents?
i personally don't know anything about the public option besides what yahoo.com's headline is. So naturally I don't have a fact based opinion. How do you guys (who seem to know much on the issue) know so much about the public option? have you read the bill?
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,922
- Reaction score
- 1,517
People are only tolerant when you agree with them. Other than that, you're a greedy, fascist pig.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,580
- Reaction score
- 4
Well put!
👍👍
Amazing how simple it is... I think it is humorous that on the pre-med forum everyone is still altruistic, and yet the more and more experience people get the more they realize you can't have everything for nothing. (Unless Obama succeeds in taking from those who worked hard to give to those who don't...)
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 8
One can be able to afford insurance and unable to pay bills. I pay for insurance and I still can't afford even my copays for a major illness, let alone the other 80% that my insurance did cover. One fluke illness and I owe over $10k in copays to a hospital (the docs waived their bills btw, so thats just for hospitalization). There are many people who choose to make the gamble that they won't end up with a major illness and then find themselves with astronomical bills. I fully support requiring health insurance (if we have affordable options for everyone) just like we require auto insurance for that reason. But the supposition that they just "won't pay" is uninformed.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 3
No. Total anarchy, and let the country flood with mexican and european docs. That will bring prices down. Public health care sucks, in every single country where it is implemented. Costs explode, demand is ever-increasing, you get a situation where you are not guaranteed optimal care, not even if you pay for it. Everything social is bad. Extreme libertarianism = good. US currently = protectionist. Most countries are driven by protectionism of single interest groups to the detriment of the population as a whole, but as ppl are clueless, there won't be any change.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't get the argument about how the caliber of doctor would be lowered if reimbursements went down a little. It'll still be a 6 figure salary, and we're talking about taking on 4 years of medical school (which you would have to pass), and then residency. I doubt some dummy who isn't serious about a career in medicine would have the drive or ability to make it through.
And yes, lots of government programs are inefficient, but look at Medicare. Most participants are very happy with their coverage (~86% according to a gallup poll). Also, look at the cost/benefit. Which is better, having an inefficient government program that has longer lines, or having no insurance at all?
I actually think all of this is a moot point. The bill that's going through right now wouldn't cover that many people, and would actually have higher premiums. I've heard that it would basically cover the high risk patients who are currently unable to get insurance, but I don't know if that's really true.
Edit: Thinking about the whole argument about physician compensation made me realize how silly it is. For one thing, most people would still have private insurance (barely anyone to no one is switching, since the public option isn't available to everyone). Second, the government has said that the reimbursement rate will be slightly higher than it is for Medicare, and last time I checked, doctors that accept Medicare aren't living in the projects. The public option would expand the patient pool, it wouldn't reallocate all of the patients to a lower compensating plan.
And yes, lots of government programs are inefficient, but look at Medicare. Most participants are very happy with their coverage (~86% according to a gallup poll). Also, look at the cost/benefit. Which is better, having an inefficient government program that has longer lines, or having no insurance at all?
I actually think all of this is a moot point. The bill that's going through right now wouldn't cover that many people, and would actually have higher premiums. I've heard that it would basically cover the high risk patients who are currently unable to get insurance, but I don't know if that's really true.
Edit: Thinking about the whole argument about physician compensation made me realize how silly it is. For one thing, most people would still have private insurance (barely anyone to no one is switching, since the public option isn't available to everyone). Second, the government has said that the reimbursement rate will be slightly higher than it is for Medicare, and last time I checked, doctors that accept Medicare aren't living in the projects. The public option would expand the patient pool, it wouldn't reallocate all of the patients to a lower compensating plan.
Last edited:
right now, doctors don't get paid much when you consider the debt, education time, maplpractice, hours, and lifestyle (unless you are in derm or something). so lowering reimbursements further makes a difference.
86% of ppl on medicare are probably just happy to have something that covers some of their health care costs that they don't need to pay premiums for. it doesn't mean its not incredibly innefficient, have poor reimbursement rates (21% cut soon), and in dire need of reforming.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,312
- Reaction score
- 2
The current plan is a mess of bloated pork and nothing else. It really doesn't address any of the core issues, by trying to please everyone, it will do nothing but make things worse. I tend to agree with an earlier poster, that you pretty much have to go one way or the other (i.e single payer or completely free market). Anything in between, at least in our current high cost technology driven system, probably won't work very well.
Doctors don't make a lot? Seriously? Yes, it sucks to have debt, but that's not unique to medicine. Think about the engineer with 100K of debt and with a 60K salary. The situation isn't much better for him. Lifestyle is what you make of it. In regards to hours, anyone who makes a lot works a lot. In law, engineering, I banking, etc.. BTW, when you look at salary figures, that's after malpractice has been paid for.
Who knows why people on Medicare are happy with their coverage? In my mind, the fact that they're happy with their coverage negates the argument that gov run health insurance is like the DMV.
many people "won't" pay because they can't. don't take my post as being uninformed or insensitive, i just think that there are people who choose not to have health insurance (that can afford it) and if unfortunately they get sick cannot afford to pay their bills. at the same time i understand health insurance is outrageously expensive and that needs to be addressed (hopefully someone wants to address the problems and not tip-toe around them).
many doctors dont make an incredible amount of money when you consider all that goes into it. plumbers make more per hour than certain doctors. of course, there are always doctors out there making a killing.
The average doctor's salary is over 100K. Look at the bls figures. I've lived comfortably my whole life, and I come from a family that doesn't make close to 100K. Frankly, it's kind of jarring to see that you think that that isn't much and could be spent really quickly. 100K would be in the upper pecentile of pay, and if you're being good with your money, you could live a very nice life with that much take home pay.
Yes, entrepreneurs make a lot... if you're successful. Most business owners don't come close to being millionaires. 99.999999999% of people don't have what it takes to strike it rich, so it's not really a valid comparison. That's like saying a 10,000 sq. ft house isn't big because 100,000 sq ft houses also exist.
Also, I can't tell if that comment about the BMW was serious.
Only a select few make 100K. That's a fact. It's in the upper 10% of incomes in the US. If your purchasing power is better than 9 out of 10 people, you make a lot, period.
Also, what's with the anecdotal evidence? You know a lot of people that are probably in the top 2 or 3 percent of earners in America. Saying that that makes doctors underpaid is a non-sequitor.
I just saw your edit, and you are really oversimplifying things. If being rich was easy, everyone would be. It's not simple to start a business, or hire workers, or do PR for yourself, or to work on all of the logistics, etc.. If you think it's easy to start an errand service, I wish you luck.
Yeah, that's exactly what you said.
Yes, I do know who makes the top 10%.
^ a b Income and poverty since 1967, US Census Bureau
Find the article. In 2003, the top 5% of earners made ~160,000. Deduce what the top 10% makes.
I don't know how many people become millionaires each year, but since the top 5% aren't close to being millionaires, you again would need to deduce that the number of millionaires is tiny.
I liked the rude remark at the end of your post. What is your point? To convince me that 6 figures is "chump change" (your words)? Sorry, I have a realistic view of the world, so that's not gonna happen.
More anecdotal evidence, seriously?
Based on all of your follow up posts, I now know that the comment about being "just another person who makes 6 figures and drives a BMW" was not a joke. wow
SO WHAT?!?!
Reading all your posts almost makes me sick. Most people who choose to become doctors DO NOT do it to MAKE MONEY. Clearly, all you care about is money - and it's almost sickening reading your posts.
Yes, doctors should make good money considering how many years of hard work they put in and considering that what they are doing for society. But they DON'T need to be millionaires! If you want to be a millionaire, go major in business and start your own company - and then you can "think" of a good idea and make lots and lots of money and marry a trophy wife and own seventeen BMW's or whatever. Don't become a doctor!
Doctors should be paid well. They deserve to be paid well. However, an MD does not entitle anyone to membership to the millionaires club.
Go to med school because you love science, love medicine and want to make a difference. Most of the professors at my university are brilliant in what they do - that doesn't mean they DESERVE to be rich. If they wanted to be rich, they wouldn't have been in academia right now.
Btw, I think it would benefit you to visit a poor area of a third world country sometimes, and see how the people there live. Perhaps then you would be thankful of what you have right now. Even being in the lower middle class in America is a million times better than how some people live in developing countries.
There's more to life than money. And forgive the cliche, but money does not equal happiness. And it never will. If all you want to do is make money, you'll never be satisfied with life until the day you die - alone and miserable.
Teh internetz. 🙂
I doubt half the congressmen have even read the entire bill.
If you want some extreme views, but interesting, reads (IMO) check out mises.org
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 584
- Reaction score
- 0
DomainName is right, the #1 reason people go into medicine is because its a guaranteed high salary with rock solid job security. Say what you will about loving what you do and helping people but the economic reality of America is that its all about the Benjamins. Idealism don't mean **** if you're homeless and worried about where your next meal is coming from. Material security must always come first, (Maslow's pyramid of needs, material first, self actualization last) and in the US your not worth jack unless your bank account says different, (despite what politicians may say about every person having intrinsic worth).
Is this ethical or just? Hell no. I wish to god that we had a partnership society like that of Denmark, (happiest nation on earth 5 years running😀) but we don't and won't anytime soon.
Its ironic that I am saying this, as my friends and family will tell you that I am the most idealistic person they know, which is why I am going to be an Army doctor.
To be perfectly honest what drew me to the military is that it is the most liberal institution in the country and offers the kind material security that is a prerequisite for true happiness. Do I love the fact that I will be serving my country and the heroes that defend her? Do I love the fact that I will see places around the globe no one else sees and truly make a difference in the world? Does the idea of maybe going into preventive medicine and helping to prepare for and respond to global epidemics, bio, chemical and nuclear warfare and possibly saving millions or even billions of lives, (literally saving the world!) thrill me to no end? HELL TO THE YES!😀
But is the original reason that I was drawn to the military the fact that they offer a free med school education, job security for life, great pay and benefits, free healthcare and a generous pension? I would be lying if I said it wasn't. My father just lost his job and he can't sleep at night he's so worried about making ends meet and taking care of his family. He confides in me so that my mother and sisters won't find our how bad our finances are or how close to bankruptcy or home foreclosure we have come several times. Like DomainName, I know from personal experience the value of financial and material security and I have sworn to myself that my family will never know that kind of fear.
I was raised to believe that a person who is smart, hard working and plays by the rules will be given a positive role to play in society and in so doing maximize their potential and long term happiness. And in return for playing that role society takes care of its own.
Some may call that socialism, I call it the American dream that we had back in the 50's and 60's and built the largest middle class in history.
Each person has a duty to themselves to see our country for what it truly is, a basically good, but deeply flawed society that dosn't meet the material needs of far too many of its citizens.
While many may attack those who admit to going into medicine for the money as unethical or greedy, I would not be so quick to judge. These people are not necessarily any less compassionate than you and they feel entitled to earning a good salary for over a decade of intensive training and working in a field that saves lives and makes the world a better place.
If we are honest we all have entitlement complexes, whether or not we wish to admit it publicly. Unless one can honestly say they would be willing to go through the toil and stress necessary to become a doctor and then spend their lives helping people, and do it for $40K, (the average income of an American) you shouldn't be judging others for you know not their life stories or what they have gone through.
Is this ethical or just? Hell no. I wish to god that we had a partnership society like that of Denmark, (happiest nation on earth 5 years running😀) but we don't and won't anytime soon.
Its ironic that I am saying this, as my friends and family will tell you that I am the most idealistic person they know, which is why I am going to be an Army doctor.
To be perfectly honest what drew me to the military is that it is the most liberal institution in the country and offers the kind material security that is a prerequisite for true happiness. Do I love the fact that I will be serving my country and the heroes that defend her? Do I love the fact that I will see places around the globe no one else sees and truly make a difference in the world? Does the idea of maybe going into preventive medicine and helping to prepare for and respond to global epidemics, bio, chemical and nuclear warfare and possibly saving millions or even billions of lives, (literally saving the world!) thrill me to no end? HELL TO THE YES!😀
But is the original reason that I was drawn to the military the fact that they offer a free med school education, job security for life, great pay and benefits, free healthcare and a generous pension? I would be lying if I said it wasn't. My father just lost his job and he can't sleep at night he's so worried about making ends meet and taking care of his family. He confides in me so that my mother and sisters won't find our how bad our finances are or how close to bankruptcy or home foreclosure we have come several times. Like DomainName, I know from personal experience the value of financial and material security and I have sworn to myself that my family will never know that kind of fear.
I was raised to believe that a person who is smart, hard working and plays by the rules will be given a positive role to play in society and in so doing maximize their potential and long term happiness. And in return for playing that role society takes care of its own.
Some may call that socialism, I call it the American dream that we had back in the 50's and 60's and built the largest middle class in history.
Each person has a duty to themselves to see our country for what it truly is, a basically good, but deeply flawed society that dosn't meet the material needs of far too many of its citizens.
While many may attack those who admit to going into medicine for the money as unethical or greedy, I would not be so quick to judge. These people are not necessarily any less compassionate than you and they feel entitled to earning a good salary for over a decade of intensive training and working in a field that saves lives and makes the world a better place.
If we are honest we all have entitlement complexes, whether or not we wish to admit it publicly. Unless one can honestly say they would be willing to go through the toil and stress necessary to become a doctor and then spend their lives helping people, and do it for $40K, (the average income of an American) you shouldn't be judging others for you know not their life stories or what they have gone through.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 6,874
- Reaction score
- 1,359
Oh gosh another person on SDN trying to give "straight talk". What you say simply is not correct and you have no basis for your statement. I'm willing to concede that guaranteed high salary and job security is a major contributor to why people choose to become doctors. But to state that the principal reason for this decision is always money exposes your inability to understand that people are raised with different values, different beliefs, and different priorities.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that everyone is with you on this one. Not everyone is as motivated by money.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 40
Man, I study for a couple of hours, come back and a bunch of highly functional ******s have hijacked the thread.
To the '**** that whined about 10 grand in medical debt. Yes, that sucks. Wanna know what else sucks? When your car breaks down for good and you have to go and you have to drop a couple of grand to get it fixed or buy another car which will cost at least um...10 grand. Hey! What a qwinky dink! Maybe we should government to buy new cars for us when they break down! Or better yet, we should pass a law that forces the auto insurance companies to pay for a new car when it breaks down. We should also prevent them from denying "car replacement" coverage just because we have an old hooptie that is running on one cylander.
It would be great, we could drive our car around, running into things, never changing the oil, dumping sugar in our gas tank and when the car finally putters out; we just go and pick up a new one. What a fantastic idea! Of course, those auto dealers and manufactures wouldn't like it but they are a bunch of greedy SOBs anyway. Those bastards and their millions of dollars. Why did they get into the car business anyway? Because they wanted to make money or because they wanted to help people realize their dream of owning a car?
See how ******ed it sounds when you apply the exact same rhetoric to any other industry?
Medicine is expensive. No other field comes close in the years of training and hard work that are expected of physicians. When it comes to health care, the buck stops with the doctor. He is the one who makes the life or death decision, he is the one who holds all the legal accountability. He is the one who goes home at night wondering if what he did was right. He is the one who faces the brunt of lawsuit after lawsuit thrown at him by angry irrational patients coaxed by lawyers (who only stand to gain from this bill)who are looking to milk the cow till it runs dry.
Doctors deserve every cent that society is willing to pay them for their work. If you want to cut reimbursements or screw with their pay, then don't be surprised when more and more doctors drop out of the practice or go "cash only". Don't be surprised when you go into your doctors office, and he steps in, talks to you for five minutes, and then charges you a 25-30 dollar copay. Don't be surprised when you try to find a doctor who accepts medicare or medicaid, that you will be S.O.L.
Oh, and suggest this to your libtard professor that cries about the evil rich doctors and the evil rich insurance companies. Remind them that tuition prices have risen 300% in the last 10 years. Ask them what they would do if their salary was threatened to be cut 10%. Ask them what they would do if their pay rate was determined by federal law and hadn't been increased in 15 years (despite the fact that cost of living had increased). Ask them what they would do if every student of theirs had the opportunity to sue them if the student felt that the professor had not done a good job teaching him/her. Ask them what they would do if every time they opened their mouth about their salary, people would jump down their back about how they should be in it for "the children" and not care about the filthy lucre.
Once again, it sounds retarted when you apply it to someone else.
To the '**** that whined about 10 grand in medical debt. Yes, that sucks. Wanna know what else sucks? When your car breaks down for good and you have to go and you have to drop a couple of grand to get it fixed or buy another car which will cost at least um...10 grand. Hey! What a qwinky dink! Maybe we should government to buy new cars for us when they break down! Or better yet, we should pass a law that forces the auto insurance companies to pay for a new car when it breaks down. We should also prevent them from denying "car replacement" coverage just because we have an old hooptie that is running on one cylander.
It would be great, we could drive our car around, running into things, never changing the oil, dumping sugar in our gas tank and when the car finally putters out; we just go and pick up a new one. What a fantastic idea! Of course, those auto dealers and manufactures wouldn't like it but they are a bunch of greedy SOBs anyway. Those bastards and their millions of dollars. Why did they get into the car business anyway? Because they wanted to make money or because they wanted to help people realize their dream of owning a car?
See how ******ed it sounds when you apply the exact same rhetoric to any other industry?
Medicine is expensive. No other field comes close in the years of training and hard work that are expected of physicians. When it comes to health care, the buck stops with the doctor. He is the one who makes the life or death decision, he is the one who holds all the legal accountability. He is the one who goes home at night wondering if what he did was right. He is the one who faces the brunt of lawsuit after lawsuit thrown at him by angry irrational patients coaxed by lawyers (who only stand to gain from this bill)who are looking to milk the cow till it runs dry.
Doctors deserve every cent that society is willing to pay them for their work. If you want to cut reimbursements or screw with their pay, then don't be surprised when more and more doctors drop out of the practice or go "cash only". Don't be surprised when you go into your doctors office, and he steps in, talks to you for five minutes, and then charges you a 25-30 dollar copay. Don't be surprised when you try to find a doctor who accepts medicare or medicaid, that you will be S.O.L.
Oh, and suggest this to your libtard professor that cries about the evil rich doctors and the evil rich insurance companies. Remind them that tuition prices have risen 300% in the last 10 years. Ask them what they would do if their salary was threatened to be cut 10%. Ask them what they would do if their pay rate was determined by federal law and hadn't been increased in 15 years (despite the fact that cost of living had increased). Ask them what they would do if every student of theirs had the opportunity to sue them if the student felt that the professor had not done a good job teaching him/her. Ask them what they would do if every time they opened their mouth about their salary, people would jump down their back about how they should be in it for "the children" and not care about the filthy lucre.
Once again, it sounds retarted when you apply it to someone else.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 0
Some would say that you shouldn't apply the same line of thinking with those comparisons you made. You can make a lot of things sound stupid by comparing them to things that they aren't really similar to
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 40
Some would say that you shouldn't apply the same line of thinking with those comparisons you made. You can make a lot of things sound stupid by comparing them to things that they aren't really similar to
That sure is convenient.
No, an auto manufacturer is not the same as a physician (congratulations on figuring that out). It doesn't change the fact that the drive pushing this "health care reform" is nothing else but the greedy desire to use the highly specialized talents of the health care profession without having to pay for it. If you tried to do the exact same thing to any other industry you would have a riot on your hands.
Wow, everyone is inferior to you b/c you have own some websites on the internet. Everyone watch out, don't bark down the big mans tree.
If you support the public option tell us why it will help improve the healthcare system and take your bragging to another thread (preferable another forum)
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 40
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 17,074
- Reaction score
- 73
Yes, I support a public option.
No, I don't support solely State run healthcare, but I have a hard time getting behind for-profit insurance.
No, I don't think that increasing the patient population will result in lower compensation.
No, I don't think an American will EVER wait for an emergent MRI or any of that other rationing BS.
No, I don't support solely State run healthcare, but I have a hard time getting behind for-profit insurance.
No, I don't think that increasing the patient population will result in lower compensation.
No, I don't think an American will EVER wait for an emergent MRI or any of that other rationing BS.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 9
I think he's on our side haha.
Well, anyway, the plain and simple truth is that people respond to incentives.
Guess what a physician's salary is to him? It's an incentive to work. No pay for physicians = no physicians. Less pay for physicians = fewer people wanting to be physicians. It's not that people only go into medicine for money; it's just that money is an incentive - and an extremely powerful one.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 17,074
- Reaction score
- 73
When did he say jail time for no health insurance? You aren't accounting for subsidies in your math either.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 677
- Reaction score
- 2
this thread is near a lock, it's time to throw down some unrelated motivational quotes:
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 318
- Reaction score
- 1
I wouldn't mind the public option if the government could demonstrate an ability to efficiently manage anything. Medicare and (particularly) Medicaid are a sham, and California and Massachusetts are heavily in the red with their plans.
I suspect we will quickly see a two-tier system with the newly "insured" in the same place the uninsured are now, namely the waiting room of the local ED. But, the government will have plenty of new avenues to levy taxes.🙄
I suspect we will quickly see a two-tier system with the newly "insured" in the same place the uninsured are now, namely the waiting room of the local ED. But, the government will have plenty of new avenues to levy taxes.🙄
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 17,074
- Reaction score
- 73
Why do I support a public option? Because in the US the only two ways civilians have control over companies is through litigation and the strong arm of the State. Litigation works well against some things (tobacco) but what works best is litigation and the strong arm approach.
The public option is self-sufficient, and even if it isn't it will cut down on the secret tax we pay for ER visits. I think people are making a HUGE deal about this because people like to make a huge deal. This is not a landmark change.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 17,074
- Reaction score
- 73
Or we could try to keep the thread civil and on track so that I don't HAVE to move it to AS...
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 17,074
- Reaction score
- 73
Link please.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 9
No, but everyone still is motivated by money (at least, all rational/non-wealthy people).
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 40
Lord, beer me strength.
You know what I have a hard time getting behind? For-profit grocery store chains. How dare those corporate parasites think that they can get rich of of other people's need for food! People can't help getting hungry and needing to eat, and those greedy bastards just exploit them and make them pay their hard earned dollars for food!
The Declaration of Independence says there is a right to life and food is necessary for life. Making profit off of something that is essential to life is just plain wrong.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 9
Yes, but imagine a "shot" is a gunshot, and your target is in between your parents. Still want to take that shot?
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 17,074
- Reaction score
- 73
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html
This is all I found on a quick google search. He didn't support one way or the other, but if you can pay, and don't it is the same as tax evasion.
This is all I found on a quick google search. He didn't support one way or the other, but if you can pay, and don't it is the same as tax evasion.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 40
Wait, are you suggesting that congressmen have stock in the medical field and are looking to push the medical field over the edge, but right before they do, they sell their stock and make a killing right before it plummets due to their bill that they forced through?
A little far fetched for me.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 17,074
- Reaction score
- 73
The Declaration of Independence is not a legal-binding document.... I mean, you know it was made before the state was, right? And parts of it have been conveniently ignored for centuries.
That aside, Your example is kind of irrelevant, because if I wanted to I could buy food directly from a farmer or butcher (we do both in my family). Also, the amount of competition in that market vastly outnumbers the amount of competition in the insurance market, and I am not contracted to a grocer.
I think the point you are trying to make is that people have the right to exploit others for profit in America. That may be true but the State has the obligation of protecting us from that. I mean, how many for profit police and fire departments do you see anymore?
"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."
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 677
- Reaction score
- 2
The difference between a mountain and a molehill is your perspective.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 40
Why, pray tell, do you think that there is not more competition in the health care field? Please enlighten me.
No, the point I am trying to make is that there is nothing wrong in people getting paid money in exchange for providing a valuable good or service. You have no problem with having for-profit grocers or for-profit carpenters (both of which provide goods and services that are more essential for life than health care)
Congratulations, you know how to cut and paste, now learn how to comprehend. It says PROVIDE for the common defense, and PROMOTE the general welfare. Two different words that mean two different things.
Now we get to the real meat of the matter. The federal government HAS NO POWER to provide universal health care. You mentioned police and fire departments? Those are provided for and paid for by local and state governments. And likewise are not a right paid for or provided for by the federal government.
I believe you represent the epitome of a douchebag.
I don't believe in a God, but if I did, I would sincerely pray to Him that you never, ever, EVER get accepted into medical school.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 17,074
- Reaction score
- 73
I hate to be "that guy", but you do realize that it is possible to have a conversation about these topics without taking that tone, right? I mean, this is the internet, I know I am smarter than you are and right, you know you are smarter than me and right.
Why is there no competition? There is a far greater cost to enter the market than other markets. Generally speaking the cheaper the entrance to the market the more competition.
There is nothing wrong with making money providing a good or service. There are strong ethical and moral implications to profiting off of people's fear of becoming ill. Also some of the practices in the Healthcare system are questionable at best, and in the past the gov has stepped in to protect citizens.
Yes, I know how to cut and paste. I could type it all out too, but I think you can see how typing "the constitution" into google and copying is a far better use of time than showing myself that I can type something I have memorized.
Forgive my copy/paste but Promote - 2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting
There is a STRONG argument to be made that a public option advances or promotes the welfare of the population.
The Federal gov DOES have that power (heard of the VA?). Yes, I mentioned those because they are great examples of the Gov deciding that somethings serve the population better when they aren't privately owned. Besides, I never said I was opposed to states offering health care, I'm actually all for it! But they don't have that right exclusively.
Why is there no competition? There is a far greater cost to enter the market than other markets. Generally speaking the cheaper the entrance to the market the more competition.
There is nothing wrong with making money providing a good or service. There are strong ethical and moral implications to profiting off of people's fear of becoming ill. Also some of the practices in the Healthcare system are questionable at best, and in the past the gov has stepped in to protect citizens.
Yes, I know how to cut and paste. I could type it all out too, but I think you can see how typing "the constitution" into google and copying is a far better use of time than showing myself that I can type something I have memorized.
Forgive my copy/paste but Promote - 2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting
There is a STRONG argument to be made that a public option advances or promotes the welfare of the population.
The Federal gov DOES have that power (heard of the VA?). Yes, I mentioned those because they are great examples of the Gov deciding that somethings serve the population better when they aren't privately owned. Besides, I never said I was opposed to states offering health care, I'm actually all for it! But they don't have that right exclusively.
Similar threads
