and me.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
No I just do not care where my tax money is wasted anymore, at all.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
So your ideal tax plan is "Tax everyone save jordan?"
and dont send me karma again fag.
ok dick
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I don't understand your fascination with universal health care.AussieReaper wrote:
More like a pot shot at the right wingers saying universal health care ruins the economy, but thanks for playing.13rin wrote:
My point is you had none. You're just looking for and excuse to take a post shot at the US. It's lame.
What we have here in the US is a mix of many types of health coverage. The vast majority of Americans receive their health coverage from their job. Even McDonald's offers health coverage to their full time employees. Employers understand that it is in their best interest to keep the workers they have devoted much time, effort and money towards training, healthy. Our old are covered by Medicare, and those that are too poor to pay for health insurance are covered by Medicaid. The only people that fall outside of these three possibilities are those that own their own businesses: freelancers, consultants and the like. Or, those that work only part time jobs. These people have myriad options available to them in order to pay for their own health insurance.
What is health insurance in the first place? Like all other forms of insurance, it is designed to level out the costs one would incur over a lifetime. Be it car insurance, which is designed to level out collision repairs or injuries sustained in an accident, or homeowners insurance, which covers the destruction of a home and the contents within, they are all designed to level out those costs and remove the peaks and valleys one might experience over the course of a lifetime. There is nothing inherently evil in any of these things, the insurers provide a service, for a fee. Do they make a profit? Yes. They wouldn't be in business otherwise. Health insurers are simply the middlemen between the policy holders and the hospitals, doctors, and clinics. But, can't we just cut out the middleman? Sure, if you want to get raped up the ass. The insurers have leverage, because like a union, they have strength in numbers. You as an individual, do not. They can say 'well, if you're going to charge these prices, we're going to take our customers elsewhere', and if the insurer is large enough, this threat carries a lot of weight and keeps costs down. Try the same as an individual and they will laugh in your face.
But why not cut out the insurance companies and place the government in their stead? Because then there are no choices. If I do not like the coverage that an insurance company offers me, I can switch insurers. If I fear I will get cancer and want access to the latest treatments, I can switch to an insurer that provides that (at higher cost of course, because that shit is expensive). If I'm stuck with the government playing the role of insurer, all the power that I possess as a consumer evaporates. I'm stuck with whatever treatment a bureaucrat has deemed to be the most cost effective. Or, whatever treatment he's been bribed to offer.
You undoubtedly feel that universal health care is more democratic, in that everyone receives the same care. How so? I view the democracy of the open market to be the best solution possible. If an insurer provides shit coverage, I can change providers. If the government provides shit coverage, I can do what? Revolt? Please. Democracy means choice, and a voice. What you want is the exact opposite of democracy, you want the power of choice to be placed in the hands of the few, because you think they will make better decisions than the 330,000,000 other people living in this nation. I have news for you: as much as you despise 'the proles', their collective wisdom and intelligence far surpasses whatever small group of intelligentsia you'd pit against them. People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. They may not make the wisest long term choices, but neither do the 'smart people' you bend over for. I think that's been proven without a shadow of a doubt over the past four years.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
When did I karma you?jord wrote:
No I just do not care where my tax money is wasted anymore, at all.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
So your ideal tax plan is "Tax everyone save jordan?"
and dont send me karma again fag.
that was directed at me. Jord has always been an ass toward me.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
i'd assume you were 3 karmas ago though i lack the time and the inclination to ask a mod.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
When did I karma you?jord wrote:
No I just do not care where my tax money is wasted anymore, at all.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
So your ideal tax plan is "Tax everyone save jordan?"
and dont send me karma again fag.
(besides i think mods are trying to be dicks this month so I might not get an answer anyway)
I think I was pretty civil to you pre name change. Then your posts seemed to go more downhillm, or perhaps your stances just became more overt. I don't recall.13rin wrote:
that was directed at me. Jord has always been an ass toward me.
Damnit... And I though you were being a jerk to me.. My bad.
*edit,
Thank you, jord.
*edit,
Thank you, jord.
Last edited by 13rin (2011-08-18 12:35:27)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
He took a pretty sharp turn towards Beck-ville during his time away, but he's been coming back towards being a libertarianjord wrote:
I think I was pretty civil to you pre name change. Then your posts seemed to go more downhillm, or perhaps your stances just became more overt. I don't recall.13rin wrote:
that was directed at me. Jord has always been an ass toward me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
during this bamfest? don't be so silly, I only have a few days of internet before I move and I intend to waste them on this site, engaging in fruitless debate.13rin wrote:
Damnit... And I though you were being a jerk to me.. My bad.
Where are you moving to?jord wrote:
during this bamfest? don't be so silly, I only have a few days of internet before I move and I intend to waste them on this site, engaging in fruitless debate.13rin wrote:
Damnit... And I though you were being a jerk to me.. My bad.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Same town, nicer area.Jay wrote:
Where are you moving to?jord wrote:
during this bamfest? don't be so silly, I only have a few days of internet before I move and I intend to waste them on this site, engaging in fruitless debate.13rin wrote:
Damnit... And I though you were being a jerk to me.. My bad.
Congrats!jord wrote:
Same town, nicer area.Jay wrote:
Where are you moving to?jord wrote:
during this bamfest? don't be so silly, I only have a few days of internet before I move and I intend to waste them on this site, engaging in fruitless debate.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Hahaha...
Yea... miscommunication.
Yea... miscommunication.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
You guys should have a group hug.
Thanks, it's a pretty small cottage type house with the wood beams and old style hobbit doors and shit. I've moved 5 times in the last 5 years so I'm pretty prepared, though it doesn't get any less stressful.Jay wrote:
Congrats!jord wrote:
Same town, nicer area.Jay wrote:
Where are you moving to?
Oh and I've realized I'm a hoarder now... You can never have too many allen keys!
Last edited by jord (2011-08-18 12:46:17)
The only thing I seem to hoard is books
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You have a fundamental flaw in what you think and expect what government healthcare involves. There is nothing stopping health insurance existing, even thriving and nothing stopping you from choosing it over the government system. What the government system does though is give care to anyone irrespective of their financial means.Jay wrote:
I don't understand your fascination with universal health care.AussieReaper wrote:
More like a pot shot at the right wingers saying universal health care ruins the economy, but thanks for playing.13rin wrote:
My point is you had none. You're just looking for and excuse to take a post shot at the US. It's lame.
What we have here in the US is a mix of many types of health coverage. The vast majority of Americans receive their health coverage from their job. Even McDonald's offers health coverage to their full time employees. Employers understand that it is in their best interest to keep the workers they have devoted much time, effort and money towards training, healthy. Our old are covered by Medicare, and those that are too poor to pay for health insurance are covered by Medicaid. The only people that fall outside of these three possibilities are those that own their own businesses: freelancers, consultants and the like. Or, those that work only part time jobs. These people have myriad options available to them in order to pay for their own health insurance.
What is health insurance in the first place? Like all other forms of insurance, it is designed to level out the costs one would incur over a lifetime. Be it car insurance, which is designed to level out collision repairs or injuries sustained in an accident, or homeowners insurance, which covers the destruction of a home and the contents within, they are all designed to level out those costs and remove the peaks and valleys one might experience over the course of a lifetime. There is nothing inherently evil in any of these things, the insurers provide a service, for a fee. Do they make a profit? Yes. They wouldn't be in business otherwise. Health insurers are simply the middlemen between the policy holders and the hospitals, doctors, and clinics. But, can't we just cut out the middleman? Sure, if you want to get raped up the ass. The insurers have leverage, because like a union, they have strength in numbers. You as an individual, do not. They can say 'well, if you're going to charge these prices, we're going to take our customers elsewhere', and if the insurer is large enough, this threat carries a lot of weight and keeps costs down. Try the same as an individual and they will laugh in your face.
But why not cut out the insurance companies and place the government in their stead? Because then there are no choices. If I do not like the coverage that an insurance company offers me, I can switch insurers. If I fear I will get cancer and want access to the latest treatments, I can switch to an insurer that provides that (at higher cost of course, because that shit is expensive). If I'm stuck with the government playing the role of insurer, all the power that I possess as a consumer evaporates. I'm stuck with whatever treatment a bureaucrat has deemed to be the most cost effective. Or, whatever treatment he's been bribed to offer.
You undoubtedly feel that universal health care is more democratic, in that everyone receives the same care. How so? I view the democracy of the open market to be the best solution possible. If an insurer provides shit coverage, I can change providers. If the government provides shit coverage, I can do what? Revolt? Please. Democracy means choice, and a voice. What you want is the exact opposite of democracy, you want the power of choice to be placed in the hands of the few, because you think they will make better decisions than the 330,000,000 other people living in this nation. I have news for you: as much as you despise 'the proles', their collective wisdom and intelligence far surpasses whatever small group of intelligentsia you'd pit against them. People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. They may not make the wisest long term choices, but neither do the 'smart people' you bend over for. I think that's been proven without a shadow of a doubt over the past four years.
"If I do not like the coverage that an insurance company offers me, I can switch insurers."
This statement is full of holes as you're not going to have any personal experience of the coverage until you need it and don't get it, and by that time no other insurer is going to accept you because of pre-existing conditions. You could legislate against discrimination of pre-existing conditions, but that is firstly against your "free market" ideology and would just cause a whole lot of people to not take insurance out until they needed it, have a company be forced to accept the application, get surgery/cured and then leave.
Insurance is all well and good when it works how the brochures portray their fairy tale world, but in the end they are a company in the business of making their owners money and will use any tactic and loophole in order to maximise profits, which basically means finding as many ways to not pay out on claims. A good example of how insurers work is the Queensland floods we had earlier this year, a lot of people who had flood dmg insurance were not paid claims because the insurance company claimed the flood was the cause of rising tidal water, which by legal definition was not a "flood". IDK about you, but I don't want those kind of people the last say in my life and death situations.
And that is different from what we have now? No.DrunkFace wrote:
You have a fundamental flaw in what you think and expect what government healthcare involves. There is nothing stopping health insurance existing, even thriving and nothing stopping you from choosing it over the government system. What the government system does though is give care to anyone irrespective of their financial means.
You speak from ignorance. My coverage options are listed for me when I sign for the coverage, not when I'm laying in a hospital bed."If I do not like the coverage that an insurance company offers me, I can switch insurers."
This statement is full of holes as you're not going to have any personal experience of the coverage until you need it and don't get it, and by that time no other insurer is going to accept you because of pre-existing conditions. You could legislate against discrimination of pre-existing conditions, but that is firstly against your "free market" ideology and would just cause a whole lot of people to not take insurance out until they needed it, have a company be forced to accept the application, get surgery/cured and then leave.
The second part, however, is correct. That's the fatal flaw in the 'Obamacare' scheme. It made for a great feel-good story getting all those 'uninsurables' health insurance, but instead of fixing the problem, it created a much larger one, hence the illegal compulsory insurance part of the law. Without the compulsory requirement to buy insurance, the entire plan collapses.
If an insurance company ends up with a bad reputation it will not stay in business. That's the beauty of competition.Insurance is all well and good when it works how the brochures portray their fairy tale world, but in the end they are a company in the business of making their owners money and will use any tactic and loophole in order to maximise profits, which basically means finding as many ways to not pay out on claims. A good example of how insurers work is the Queensland floods we had earlier this year, a lot of people who had flood dmg insurance were not paid claims because the insurance company claimed the flood was the cause of rising tidal water, which by legal definition was not a "flood". IDK about you, but I don't want those kind of people the last say in my life and death situations.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Really? Cause that's not the picture I've seen painted by anyone else, American or otherwise.Jay wrote:
And that is different from what we have now? No.DrunkFace wrote:
You have a fundamental flaw in what you think and expect what government healthcare involves. There is nothing stopping health insurance existing, even thriving and nothing stopping you from choosing it over the government system. What the government system does though is give care to anyone irrespective of their financial means.
As per my flood example what they list is not always what they cover, also too bad if you have any pre-existing or genetic conditions or risks and get slapped with excessive dues or refused coverage.You speak from ignorance. My coverage options are listed for me when I sign for the coverage, not when I'm laying in a hospital bed."If I do not like the coverage that an insurance company offers me, I can switch insurers."
This statement is full of holes as you're not going to have any personal experience of the coverage until you need it and don't get it, and by that time no other insurer is going to accept you because of pre-existing conditions. You could legislate against discrimination of pre-existing conditions, but that is firstly against your "free market" ideology and would just cause a whole lot of people to not take insurance out until they needed it, have a company be forced to accept the application, get surgery/cured and then leave.
The second part, however, is correct. That's the fatal flaw in the 'Obamacare' scheme. It made for a great feel-good story getting all those 'uninsurables' health insurance, but instead of fixing the problem, it created a much larger one, hence the illegal compulsory insurance part of the law. Without the compulsory requirement to buy insurance, the entire plan collapses.
I haven't read much into obamacare, but what I have heard sounds completely retarded and absolutely nothing like what is implemented in other countries.
Too bad for the people who lost half a million dollars worth of home and have no where to live or the business who lost even more in shop and stock. Or are dead in case of health insurers.If an insurance company ends up with a bad reputation it will not stay in business. That's the beauty of competition.Insurance is all well and good when it works how the brochures portray their fairy tale world, but in the end they are a company in the business of making their owners money and will use any tactic and loophole in order to maximise profits, which basically means finding as many ways to not pay out on claims. A good example of how insurers work is the Queensland floods we had earlier this year, a lot of people who had flood dmg insurance were not paid claims because the insurance company claimed the flood was the cause of rising tidal water, which by legal definition was not a "flood". IDK about you, but I don't want those kind of people the last say in my life and death situations.
You've been fed propaganda, especially if you are watching or reading American news. I hate to quote Fox, but there is a very, very large bias in our media when it comes to political issues, health care being chief among them. Anyone can go to a hospital and receive treatment, with or without insurance. Anyone can purchase health insurance (except those that deprioritized their own health and chose not to purchase it until they were already sick). Or, if they can't afford it, they qualify for medicaid or medicare.DrunkFace wrote:
Really? Cause that's not the picture I've seen painted by anyone else, American or otherwise.Jay wrote:
And that is different from what we have now? No.DrunkFace wrote:
You have a fundamental flaw in what you think and expect what government healthcare involves. There is nothing stopping health insurance existing, even thriving and nothing stopping you from choosing it over the government system. What the government system does though is give care to anyone irrespective of their financial means.
Then they can file a lawsuit if they feel that they've been ripped off by the insurance companies. I don't know about Australia, but Americans are rather fond of class action lawsuits.As per my flood example what they list is not always what they cover, also too bad if you have any pre-existing or genetic conditions or risks and get slapped with excessive dues or refused coverage.You speak from ignorance. My coverage options are listed for me when I sign for the coverage, not when I'm laying in a hospital bed."If I do not like the coverage that an insurance company offers me, I can switch insurers."
This statement is full of holes as you're not going to have any personal experience of the coverage until you need it and don't get it, and by that time no other insurer is going to accept you because of pre-existing conditions. You could legislate against discrimination of pre-existing conditions, but that is firstly against your "free market" ideology and would just cause a whole lot of people to not take insurance out until they needed it, have a company be forced to accept the application, get surgery/cured and then leave.
The second part, however, is correct. That's the fatal flaw in the 'Obamacare' scheme. It made for a great feel-good story getting all those 'uninsurables' health insurance, but instead of fixing the problem, it created a much larger one, hence the illegal compulsory insurance part of the law. Without the compulsory requirement to buy insurance, the entire plan collapses.
I haven't read much into obamacare, but what I have heard sounds completely retarded and absolutely nothing like what is implemented in other countries.Too bad for the people who lost half a million dollars worth of home and have no where to live or the business who lost even more in shop and stock. Or are dead in case of health insurers.If an insurance company ends up with a bad reputation it will not stay in business. That's the beauty of competition.Insurance is all well and good when it works how the brochures portray their fairy tale world, but in the end they are a company in the business of making their owners money and will use any tactic and loophole in order to maximise profits, which basically means finding as many ways to not pay out on claims. A good example of how insurers work is the Queensland floods we had earlier this year, a lot of people who had flood dmg insurance were not paid claims because the insurance company claimed the flood was the cause of rising tidal water, which by legal definition was not a "flood". IDK about you, but I don't want those kind of people the last say in my life and death situations.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If this is the case, what is the point inJay wrote:
Anyone can go to a hospital and receive treatment, with or without insurance.
If you don't need insurance why do you need to 'qualify' for government assistance? Should not everyone qualify?if they can't afford it, they qualify for medicaid or medicare.
Why should they? If they can afford to pay for their healthcare, then they should pay for it.DrunkFace wrote:
If this is the case, what is the point inJay wrote:
Anyone can go to a hospital and receive treatment, with or without insurance.If you don't need insurance why do you need to 'qualify' for government assistance? Should not everyone qualify?if they can't afford it, they qualify for medicaid or medicare.
How is this any different from your system, where you pay taxes to cover the medical costs? Instead of paying the government, we pay insurers. Some people choose not to buy insurance they can afford. It's no different from refusing to pay taxes. Would you be willing to pay for the health care of someone that refused to pay taxes? I think not.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They do pay. It's called taxes. Shouldn't the people who are paying the most taxes (the ones which can afford health care) have a right to the system their tax dollars are funding? The system already exists, and has to exist but you're saying the primary funders are denied free access and think that is fair?Jay wrote:
Why should they? If they can afford to pay for their healthcare, then they should pay for it.DrunkFace wrote:
If this is the case, what is the point inJay wrote:
Anyone can go to a hospital and receive treatment, with or without insurance.If you don't need insurance why do you need to 'qualify' for government assistance? Should not everyone qualify?if they can't afford it, they qualify for medicaid or medicare.
How is this any different from your system, where you pay taxes to cover the medical costs? Instead of paying the government, we pay insurers. Some people choose not to buy insurance they can afford. It's no different from refusing to pay taxes. Would you be willing to pay for the health care of someone that refused to pay taxes? I think not.