Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


defiantbadgirl -> Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 7:13:06 PM)

In most US states, a murder conviction can result in being sentenced to death. Insurance companies refusing to pay sometimes results in death. The fact that insurance companies look for ways out of paying makes any resulting death pre meditated murder. Yet many of the same people who are pro death penalty are worried about putting health insurance companies out of business. If individuals who commit pre meditated murder don't get second chances, why should insurance companies? It makes no sense.




Thadius -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 7:50:38 PM)

Evening,

Using the same logic... could not one say that stores that sell cigarettes, cigars, liquor, and other items that are "known" to cause life threatening illnesses (diseases) be considered as committing "pre-meditated murder".  Or on an even more personal note, how about the "poor" cashier that hands them to the purchaser? The clerk at wally world that sell ammunition? How about car dealers?  I do hope that you see the slippery slope you are opening up, with such an argument...

I wish you well,
Thadius




Arpig -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 8:00:12 PM)

Well I am anti death penalty and pro single payer, so it does not seem impossible to me that somebody might hold the opposite position...what it does seem is incomprehensible how anybody could be a rational thinking person and be either pro death penalty or anti single payer, but that's just me.




Fellow -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 8:55:40 PM)

The analogy assumes health-care is a basic human right. The government follows the US Constitution.  The way then would be to initiate constitutional amendment that mandates government action. None of the major presidential candidates offered single payer solution this time. Obviously it is impossible considering the balance of power. The corporations are running the show.
The only real way for an individual in US to have single payer option is to create medical savings account and be their own single payer.





FatDomDaddy -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 9:00:10 PM)

I am against the Death Penalty and I am against Single Payer Health Care.

The Government cannot run the Health system for Vets so what makes you think they can runit for the whole country?




rulemylife -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 9:02:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

I am against the Death Penalty and I am against Single Payer Health Care.

The Government cannot run the Health system for Vets so what makes you think they can runit for the whole country?


And out of idle curiosity, have you had first-hand experience with VA healthcare?




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 9:12:15 PM)

I have indeed, though I now have private insurance through my employeer





rulemylife -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 9:59:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

I have indeed, though I now have private insurance through my employeer



So please share what you found the reasons to be for your comment that "The Government cannot run the Health system for Vets so what makes you think they can runit for the whole country?".




HatesParisHilton -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 10:03:41 PM)

damn, I misread the title as "Pro death penalty Anti single prayer. Wtf?"

THAT would have caused a wrikle...




defiantbadgirl -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 10:23:51 PM)

If individuals deserve to die for commiting pre meditated murder, why don't health insurance companies who also commit pre meditated murder deserve the same? Why aren't strong supporters of the death penalty all for anything that would kill the murdering insurance companies?




ArtCatDom -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 10:28:21 PM)

I oppose the death penalty out of purely pragamatic concerns of fairness. It is applied in an extremely uneven fashion. That is a problem with the U.S. justice system as a whole, but death is an utter finality that does not allow for correction in any fashion and the death penalty is even more grossly unbalanced than the system taken at the avereage.

I also oppose a single payer system out of pragmatism. People can complain about the corrupt and inefficient corporations all they would like, but they are several times more efficient and clean (in an ethical sense) than government bureaucracies. If we privatized Medicare and Medacaid by moving the coverage to private insurers, in the same vein as New York's Healthy NY and Family Health Plus, we would drastically save money and improve the level of coverage offered. The savings, even assuming high market rates, would be more than enough to provide coverage to the remaining uninsured. I cannot overemphasize how inefficient, inept, and corrupt government bureaucracies are compared to private companies providing the same services.

If you want real health care reform, fix the system. The regulations and general environment of the health care market are directly responsible for the ridiculous cost of health insurance. It's a combination of terrible overegulation, half-witted partial deregulation, reregulation to "correct" the deregulation, and on in a big endless spiral of stupid. To draw a good parallel, think Enron. It was only able to do what it did because of the aforementioned cycle of bad regulatory practices. (Contrary to popular conception, it wasn't just the poorly done partial deregulation that caused the situation, but rather the entire cycle of bad regulation.) People twitter on about tort reform, making more regulations to make insurers more accountable, subsidizing research and so on. These will not fix our system and do not even touch the greatest costs. Paperwork and the shuffling thereof is the single greatest expense in our system and it is directly traceable to the regulatory and business environment of the industry. We should be downright ashamed that our administrative costs are factors greater than the costs incurred by other government bureaucracies providing health care. It would be a lot easier to enforce better compliance and standards on health insurers about covering claims and covering pre-existing conditions if they were not burdened with these ridiculous costs. Hospitals and private practices would also greatly benefit from the reduction in costs.




rulemylife -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 10:53:13 PM)

Do you have any facts to back all this conjecture?









TheHeretic -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 11:04:26 PM)

I am pro-death penalty for crimes beyond just murder, Defia, but I'm not seeing how you get from point a to point b here.  Can you be a whole lot clearer on how you figure crimes of omission are equivalent to crimes committed?




HatesParisHilton -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 11:13:07 PM)

unemployment is up, healthcare is about to be socialized, all the rest of the worls complains about Americans being both too fat and too lazy, so...

all birds killed with the follwoing single stone:

bring back penal colonies.

don't kill'em, just work their numbskull dumb-asses to death and pay them minimum wage minus the cost of their prison upkeep.

(yes, I've been watching Dickens on dvd again...)




ArtCatDom -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 11:17:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Do you have any facts to back all this conjecture?


The socio-economic bias of the justice system and death penalty are pretty universally accepted, as are the ridiculous administrative costs of our health system and the even more ridiculous costs of our entitlement programs (including government insurance). If you disagree with those points, please do some simple research. Beyond those, can you be more specific about which points you desire information regarding?




rulemylife -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 11:21:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Can you be a whole lot clearer on how you figure crimes of omission are equivalent to crimes committed?



Omission Law & Legal Definition

Omission is a failure to carry out or perform an act. Omission is a neglect of duty. Law imposes a duty on every person to take adequate action to prevent a foreseeable injury. In Criminal law, omissions may give rise to lawsuits and will constitute a guilty act if a person breaches his duty. If a person fails to act knowingly that his/her failure would cause a harm or injury to other person(s), then such a failure constitutes an omission.


(Legal Definitions Legal Terms Dictionary)




rulemylife -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 11:25:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
Do you have any facts to back all this conjecture?


The socio-economic bias of the justice system and death penalty are pretty universally accepted, as are the ridiculous administrative costs of our health system and the even more ridiculous costs of our entitlement programs (including government insurance). If you disagree with those points, please do some simple research. Beyond those, can you be more specific about which points you desire information regarding?


I see, so your argument is everything you said is already universally known and accepted.

Sorry, I accept very little of what you have said and it is not up to me to prove your comments wrong but rather you to substantiate your own argument with facts.




UDress4Me -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (9/30/2009 11:49:52 PM)

There are several misconceptions here.
Foremost is that anyone is "entitiled" to health care insurance. Insurance of any kind is NOT one of the inalienable rights in the Constitution. Those that feel a moral obligation to care for those less fortunate are welcome to contribute to the social welfare charity of their choice to provide for those that can't provide for themselves.
Next is the concept of insurance itself. Insurance is a way to mitigate risk. It is not a panacea to cover every concievable circumstance. Insurance companies are businesses and just like life, auto, disaster and yes, health insurance, there are limits of coverage. These limits are set by actuarial tables composed from claims experience. You should get what you pay for.
Yes, there are some that cannot easily afford some form of health insurance or those that choose not to have health insurance. What they can afford defines the limits of coverage. Those same folks that cannot easily afford health insurance or choose not to have it are the same folks that have other niceties of life rasther than insurance and that is their right and choice. Don't expect others t come to your rescue because you didn't properly plan ahead.
Then there are those who legitimately cannot afford insurance at all. They do have access to health care through clinics and for catastrophic events, emergency rooms of hospitals.
Are there abuses of the system? Of course. This is what needs to be addressed, not to provide for everyone, especially that single payer crap. The single payer is you, you blithering idiots in favor of single payer. You pay for it every week when you get a progressively smaller paycheck!
There is need for reform to reduce the skyrocketing costs of healthcare for you, for me, for everyone, but our government isn't addressing this and that's what we should be pressurinig them to do as follows:
1: Tort reform. Yes, there are legitimate cases of malpractice and those that violate the "First do no harm" doctrine should be penalized. There are far more abuses from false claims or exagerated claims. Definitions, limits and penalties for false claims is a good start. If a false suit is determined by the courts the loser should pay all legal fees including the medical professional's costs to defend them. This alone will reduce suits considerably. Many doctors are afraid to practice practical, efficient medicine because they're afraid of possible malpractice suits and they order unnecessary tests.
2: Prior condition exceptions should be addressed but not eliminated. There should be no prior condition limittions if someone needs to relocate or suffers temporary unemployment. I can't see paying for cancer treatment or HIV treatment for someone that has never had insurance but now that they have an expensive illnes "let someone else pay for it" is a bad idea. It will only cause premium increases for the rest of us.
3: Portablility should be available. Just becasue you move doesn't mean your insurance should cease.
4: Increased competition. The free market is the best leveler of costs in any industry. There are states that don't allow competition or restrict it.
5: Reduce abuses in charges and payments. Have you ever looked at your Blue Cross statements and seen what charges are submitted and what Blue Cross pays? There should be a scale of what each procedure and/or office of hospital visit is allowed, adjusted for geographic location. A proedure in NY sure costs more than one in Florida. Reduce unnecessary and/or duplicate testing. (see tort reform above)
6: Give reductions in premiums for those that have regular doctor visits and maintain a relatively healthy lifestyle. Smokers and those that are obese (just 2 examples)should pay more beause they are higher risk from things they can control. Those that participate in their own wellness should be rewarded both in better health nd lower rates.
7: Businesses pay for employee healthcare as a way to induce people to work for them. It's not a right nor should you expect to get health insurance just because you have a job. If you have skills valueable enough to warrant getting health insurance s part of your employee package you can shop employers for the best deal. if you don't you take what you can get or get your own. Forcing businesses to include health care as part of employee compensation will only increase the cost of doing business and ultimately that cost gets passed down to us, the consumer.
The wierd thing about common sense is, it ain't too common. And the current legislations proposed make no sense at all unless you're one of the have nots or a bleeding heart liberal, wich is fine. You want to feed and clothe and house and insure theless fortunate YOU pay for them. Don't dip your hands into my pockets!
Let thegovernment work on these as a start and stop trying to completely rwork a system that, for the most part, works OK. Don't forget 85% of Americans are happy with their healthcare. Fix what's brokem don't start all over and make a majority pay for the minority.
Just one WORKING man's opinion but I don't want more government in my life and if you think about it you don't either.




ArtCatDom -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (10/1/2009 12:16:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
I see, so your argument is everything you said is already universally known and accepted.

Sorry, I accept very little of what you have said and it is not up to me to prove your comments wrong but rather you to substantiate your own argument with facts.


I said no such thing. I named three things. They are common knowledge and well-established for anyone with a passing familiarity with even the basic material available on the subjects. It is not up to discussion participants to convince you of common facts nor to educate you in the basics of the subject. Additionally, it is an extreme misreading of my reply to apply it to the entirety of my previous post, which makes other claims.

If are truly skeptical about those three points and actually interested, please feel free to send me a private message and I'll put together a reading list of basic college textbooks  and journal articles for you.    




SilverMark -> RE: Pro death penalty Anti single payer. Wtf? (10/1/2009 2:21:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtCatDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
I see, so your argument is everything you said is already universally known and accepted.

Sorry, I accept very little of what you have said and it is not up to me to prove your comments wrong but rather you to substantiate your own argument with facts.


I said no such thing. I named three things. They are common knowledge and well-established for anyone with a passing familiarity with even the basic material available on the subjects. It is not up to discussion participants to convince you of common facts nor to educate you in the basics of the subject. Additionally, it is an extreme misreading of my reply to apply it to the entirety of my previous post, which makes other claims.

If are truly skeptical about those three points and actually interested, please feel free to send me a private message and I'll put together a reading list of basic college textbooks  and journal articles for you.    


No reason to be condecending Art....rule is a frequent poster and agree or not is pretty bright and versed on many issues.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125