BF2S Forums Supreme Court begins review of health-care law

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Please explain why our system is wrong just because it's different?

Y'all in the rest of the world spend an inordinate amount of time trying to tell Americans that they're wrong because they don't conform to your cultural norms. You make a big deal about imperial standard units vs metric, farenheit vs celcius, driving on a certain side of the road, having enough socialism in our government. Worry about your own shit, like the fact that your military is full of overweight alcoholics, thanks.

You don't see anything wrong with our healthcare system? We pay more per capita than most industrialized countries. Lots of people go bankrupt from hospital bills. Even those with health insurance. Ignoring those problems isn't going to make them go away. Or maybe you just don't see that as a problem. I'm not saying mandated, federally controlled health plans is the solution, but to pretend like the healthcare system as it stands is perfect seems a bit weird.

I never said it was perfect, I just don't believe that having politicians inflict their ideas upon the rest of us is a good alternative to what we have right now. A small percentage of the country goes bankrupt, yes, but it is a very small percentage. Do you replace the entire car if you have one tire that leaks air once in a while?

I don't have a problem with for-profit medicine at all. People spend a lot of time going to medical school, and hospitals invest billions of dollars in equipment. They should be able to charge whatever they can get away with.

I think the healthcare system is broke.  There needs to be reform.  I don't know if the government-offered solution is the best, because I really don't understand what will change or how I would be affected. I think politicians are acting in the interests of big business more than the interests of the people, but that's based on historical precedent.  I wish it were as simple as "democrats want universal health care, and so it was" but its not.  Stop pretending that's what's happening.

The last stat I saw was that something like 50% of bankruptcies are medically related.  That's not a leaking tire, that's a wheel that's fallen off. 

I look at other industrialized countries that have 'universal' health care and make this comparison - they pay a small tax, and receive care with little to no extra costs.  I pay health insurance and still have to pay out of pocket for almost everything.  The medical care is basically comparable.  So why can't something that works there work here?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You don't see anything wrong with our healthcare system? We pay more per capita than most industrialized countries. Lots of people go bankrupt from hospital bills. Even those with health insurance. Ignoring those problems isn't going to make them go away. Or maybe you just don't see that as a problem. I'm not saying mandated, federally controlled health plans is the solution, but to pretend like the healthcare system as it stands is perfect seems a bit weird.

I never said it was perfect, I just don't believe that having politicians inflict their ideas upon the rest of us is a good alternative to what we have right now. A small percentage of the country goes bankrupt, yes, but it is a very small percentage. Do you replace the entire car if you have one tire that leaks air once in a while?

I don't have a problem with for-profit medicine at all. People spend a lot of time going to medical school, and hospitals invest billions of dollars in equipment. They should be able to charge whatever they can get away with.

I think the healthcare system is broke.  There needs to be reform.  I don't know if the government-offered solution is the best, because I really don't understand what will change or how I would be affected. I think politicians are acting in the interests of big business more than the interests of the people, but that's based on historical precedent.  I wish it were as simple as "democrats want universal health care, and so it was" but its not.  Stop pretending that's what's happening.

The last stat I saw was that something like 50% of bankruptcies are medically related.  That's not a leaking tire, that's a wheel that's fallen off. 

I look at other industrialized countries that have 'universal' health care and make this comparison - they pay a small tax, and receive care with little to no extra costs.  I pay health insurance and still have to pay out of pocket for almost everything.  The medical care is basically comparable.  So why can't something that works there work here?

the system is fine ken, we just need to kill the sick

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You don't see anything wrong with our healthcare system? We pay more per capita than most industrialized countries. Lots of people go bankrupt from hospital bills. Even those with health insurance. Ignoring those problems isn't going to make them go away. Or maybe you just don't see that as a problem. I'm not saying mandated, federally controlled health plans is the solution, but to pretend like the healthcare system as it stands is perfect seems a bit weird.

I never said it was perfect, I just don't believe that having politicians inflict their ideas upon the rest of us is a good alternative to what we have right now. A small percentage of the country goes bankrupt, yes, but it is a very small percentage. Do you replace the entire car if you have one tire that leaks air once in a while?

I don't have a problem with for-profit medicine at all. People spend a lot of time going to medical school, and hospitals invest billions of dollars in equipment. They should be able to charge whatever they can get away with.

I think the healthcare system is broke.  There needs to be reform.  I don't know if the government-offered solution is the best, because I really don't understand what will change or how I would be affected. I think politicians are acting in the interests of big business more than the interests of the people, but that's based on historical precedent.  I wish it were as simple as "democrats want universal health care, and so it was" but its not.  Stop pretending that's what's happening.

The last stat I saw was that something like 50% of bankruptcies are medically related.  That's not a leaking tire, that's a wheel that's fallen off. 

I look at other industrialized countries that have 'universal' health care and make this comparison - they pay a small tax, and receive care with little to no extra costs.  I pay health insurance and still have to pay out of pocket for almost everything.  The medical care is basically comparable.  So why can't something that works there work here?

They're not so much acting in the interest of big business, as much as they have no other choice. They're trained as lawyers for the most part and don't have a background in anything but winning popularity contests. Expecting them to write specific legislation on their own is a fools errand. They don't have any choice but to go to whatever industry it is they are attempting to write laws for and ask for help from 'experts'. Of course those 'experts' will try to use the written legislation to further their own interests. Being a campaign donor just means its that much more likely that you'll be asked to help draft. Our government went to shit when they left the realm of generalities and tried to micromanage. This is why we have bank, and auto bailouts, and new expensive fees levied on anyone who wants to prepare taxes for a living (except H&R Block and other big preparers since the legislation was written at the IRS by H&R Blocks former CEO). It's why the health insurance companies were asked to help write Obamacare.

Politicians are worthless at best, and every election cycle idiot voters expect them to move mountains. This is the system we deserve.

Last edited by Jay (2012-03-27 15:57:34)

Which is the innate problem of the impersonal representative democracies we have in the west. I don't see the current system surviving this century, and if it does - barely.

I don't like modern libertarianism much though, it's a form of anarchism really.

what the heck is modern libertarianism? you just made that up, right?

impersonal representative democracy is redundant.

Shocking wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

um, ooookkkk.  They just lean on the 'experts' for their industry knowledge and technical expertise.  yeah, that's the ticket....nothing to do with receiving massive funding from industry to keep getting elected.  Nothing to do with receiving cush jobs after their political reign is done.

Do you think about what you write, or is this stream-of-consciousness stuff?

Unlike many (these days) I doubt  that politicians always have egotistical motives driving them in their day to day business and legislative proposals. They're generally just incompetent.

Exactly. They can't comprehend most of the trash they sign their name on.

Shocking, 'modern libertarianism' is simply classical liberalism transported to the 21st century. Yes, it is borderline anarchic, but that was philosophy this nation was founded on, a hands off, weak government.

Shocking wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

um, ooookkkk.  They just lean on the 'experts' for their industry knowledge and technical expertise.  yeah, that's the ticket....nothing to do with receiving massive funding from industry to keep getting elected.  Nothing to do with receiving cush jobs after their political reign is done.

Do you think about what you write, or is this stream-of-consciousness stuff?

Unlike many (these days) I doubt  that politicians always have egotistical motives driving them in their day to day business and legislative proposals. They're generally just incompetent.

I disagree.  I think they latch onto a platform/idea/ideal, then figure out how they can milk the most money out of it.  99% of the time I think they are acting in their own self interests aka not altruism in any regard.

Jay wrote:

Shocking, 'modern libertarianism' is simply classical liberalism transported to the 21st century. Yes, it is borderline anarchic, but that was philosophy this nation was founded on, a hands off, weak government.

How is ignoring social issues going to solve them?

Shocking wrote:

Many of them actually are altruists.

Hell no.

If you view politicians as people, like I do, then you can't possibly believe most of them are altruists. Saying most politicians are altruists is like saying most people all altruists. That's just not true.

They, like all other human beings, will do do what is best for them 99% of the time. Especially since they have nice lifestyles most humans beings would kill to have. They won't jeopardize that for the"greater good"

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-03-27 16:33:46)

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shocking, 'modern libertarianism' is simply classical liberalism transported to the 21st century. Yes, it is borderline anarchic, but that was philosophy this nation was founded on, a hands off, weak government.

How is ignoring social issues going to solve them?

Ignoring what social issues?

Cybargs wrote:

5k a year is pretty steep for health insurance. fuck even in Aussie someone making 100k a year is paying only 1k (1% a year). economies of scale dawg.

Right, because not a penny is taken out of the general fund to cover losses. Your healthcare system makes due with 1% of total income. Yeah, sure, ok.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Read closer, it's both reasons. Many times, donors propose regulations on their own industry in order to hurt their competitors. We need to get government out of business completely

no dude, government needs to regulate certain aspects of business.  we live in a civilized society that can't afford the violent up and down cycles of unregulated business.  Some regulation is good, some is bad. It's incredibly stupid to think that shutting government completely out of business would be a good idea.  I thought you were smarter than that.

The only role I feel government should play in business is via the justice system. Prosecute fraud, theft, uphold contracts, that sort of thing. Telling businesses how they should operate is beyond the scope of government.

wouldn't they first have to create laws that tell a business what is and what is not fraud (ie. telling them how they can operate) in order to prosecute?