RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance!

RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (Full Version)

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

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/28/2013 7:51:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Here is where we differ. What do you think the right to life is, if not healthcare ? The right to life isn't that we have the right to live to some age. It's that our life can't be taken from us. Health care is a product that extends our life. It doesn't provide life where none exists. It combats disease states. Since it has to be produced, if you aren't producing it yourself, someone else has to. If you have a right to that which they produce, aren't there a sort of slave to your right? A slave to medicene, thats an asinine suggestion. As for the right to life, your reply is somewhat missing the point. A government making it law your life can not be taken from you, and a government making a law that you are entitled to healthcare, is still a government making a law. No, the producer of the care is the slave because someone else has the right to that which he/she produces. If you have a right to something, it's an infringement of your right to have it kept from you. Government doesn't make a law that my life can't be taken from me. Government is saying, because I have a right to not have my life taken from me, here is what the penalties are going to be for doing so. quote: As for the other post about the right to bear arms, of course its provided by the Constitution, since its provided by the same Government that wrote the Constitution and the defining amendment. Thats hardly difficult to follow. And, yet, you didn't follow it. The Bill of Rights was an addition demanded by the Anti-Federalists. It wasn't a listing of the rights government is providing, but a list specifying some rights that government can not infringe on. Hamilton thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, as the US Constitution only provided limited authorities to the Federal Government. The Federalist #84 quote: I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. The Bill of Rights is dangerous, according to Hamilton, because it implies that a power was granted of government, even though none was. That is, the rights embodied in the Bill of Rights were already owned by the People. The US Constitution, for the most part, is a granting of limited authority to the Federal government. The Anti-Federalists were wary of the "normal" encroachment of government to grow in it's powers and authorities, encroaching on and usurping the rights of the People. In a sense, the Bill of Rights was a specifying of lines that aren't to be infringed by government.

tweakabelle -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/29/2013 12:42:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail what does the change in pre and post do for you? Isn't that as meaningful as pre and post percentages of GDP in medicare part D? I mean if you have asked it repeatedly, why don't you do your own homework to disparage your own strawmen? The claim is made by others. I'm asking for proof. No the claim made by others is a universal scheme is far cheaper for those countries that operate one, than the primitive US system is for US citizens. Typically other countries currently spend about half the amount the US spends on healthcare, measured as a % of GDP. On the basis of those figures, they assert that a universal scheme will save the US a lot of money. So the question is a very simple one: can the US manage to do what everyone else has done, or is it incapable of achieving the same results? The figures DS is demanding are nothing more than a red herring. For example, the relevant figures from the UK would date back to pre- and post-1948, the year the National Health Scheme was introduced. Australian figures would be c30 years old. The German system was initially set up in the 1880s. source How useful would data up to 150 years old be in assessing today's healthcare costs? Totally useless for any one who wants to be realistic, but a neat red herring to hide behind for those whose argument is destroyed by the current figures yet refuses to face reality and accept defeat.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/29/2013 3:29:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail what does the change in pre and post do for you? Isn't that as meaningful as pre and post percentages of GDP in medicare part D? I mean if you have asked it repeatedly, why don't you do your own homework to disparage your own strawmen[ The claim is made by others. I'm asking for proof. No the claim made by others is a universal scheme is far cheaper for those countries that operate one, than the primitive US system is for US citizens. Typically other countries currently spend about half the amount the US spends on healthcare, measured as a % of GDP. On the basis of those figures, they assert that a universal scheme will save the US a lot of money. So the question is a very simple one: can the US manage to do what everyone else has done, or is it incapable of achieving the same results? The figures DS is demanding are nothing more than a red herring. For example, the relevant figures from the UK would date back to pre- and post-1948, the year the National Health Scheme was introduced. Australian figures would be c30 years old. The German system was initially set up in the 1880s. source How useful would data up to 150 years old be in assessing today's healthcare costs? Totally useless for any one who wants to be realistic, but a neat red herring to hide behind for those whose argument is destroyed by the current figures yet refuses to face reality and accept defeat. So, either you have no proof of causation, and the claims are mere correlation, or you aren't willing to show the effects on pre and post national health care. Can the US get the same results? I don't think we can. If we aren't going to see a huge drop in care costs, then comparing the two systems isn't worth spit. If it can't be shown that care costs dropped after moving to a national health care system, how is it that people think the US will see care costs drop by adopting a national health care model? FYI, making the claim that we'd be better off with a national care model will continue to be met with this query. Hell, for all you know, you could have been better off had you not moved to a national health care model. If you don't agree, you must have some idea of why, don't ya?

thompsonx -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/29/2013 12:59:02 PM)
the Bill of Rights was a specifying of lines that aren't to be infringed by government. That would be the government of the people by the people and for the people? That could, if it chose, repeal any ammendment just like the volsted act was repealed.

thompsonx -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/29/2013 1:07:22 PM)
No, the producer of the care is the slave because someone else has the right to that which he/she produces. How are they a slave if they are paid for the services rendered? The aca does not require health care workers to work for free...why would anyone believe that? If you have a right to something, it's an infringement of your right to have it kept from you. What is your point? Government doesn't make a law that my life can't be taken from me. Government makes a law that says that your life may not be taken from you. Government is saying,because I have a right to not have my life taken from me, here is what the penalties are going to be for doing so. For those who know the difference between the words can and may This exercise in bullshit semantics is less than drol.

Politesub53 -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/29/2013 5:28:43 PM)
quote: Original DesideriScuri: If we aren't going to see a huge drop in care costs, then comparing the two systems isn't worth spit. If it can't be shown that care costs dropped after moving to a national health care system, how is it that people think the US will see care costs drop by adopting a national health care model? FFS, The figures are clear enough. The US spends more on health per capita than the NHS. The NHS treats everyone. Its laughable that you want proof that care costs dropped after the introduction of the NHS, they didnt, the reason being only those who could afford it or were lucky enough to go to a charity run hospital got any help. That my friend, was the whole damn point of the NHS...... As I said before, and you missed it, mortality rates have dropped and continue to drop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10718504

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/29/2013 8:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Original DesideriScuri: If we aren't going to see a huge drop in care costs, then comparing the two systems isn't worth spit. If it can't be shown that care costs dropped after moving to a national health care system, how is it that people think the US will see care costs drop by adopting a national health care model? FFS, The figures are clear enough. The US spends more on health per capita than the NHS. The NHS treats everyone. Its laughable that you want proof that care costs dropped after the introduction of the NHS, they didnt, the reason being only those who could afford it or were lucky enough to go to a charity run hospital got any help. That my friend, was the whole damn point of the NHS...... As I said before, and you missed it, mortality rates have dropped and continue to drop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10718504 FFS is right! The US Government (public dollars, not private dollars) spends more as a % of GDP than the NHS. How is it we're going to add people to that and end up spending less? Can you show me that instituting the NHS caused costs to drop in the UK? If you can't, what basis is there to think that costs will drop in the US? Romneycare hasn't dropped the costs of care in Massachusetts. They were spending more per capita than any other State, and they are still spending more per capita than any other State, 7 years later. What gives?

Phydeaux -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/29/2013 10:16:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail what does the change in pre and post do for you? Isn't that as meaningful as pre and post percentages of GDP in medicare part D? I mean if you have asked it repeatedly, why don't you do your own homework to disparage your own strawmen? The claim is made by others. I'm asking for proof. No the claim made by others is a universal scheme is far cheaper for those countries that operate one, than the primitive US system is for US citizens. Typically other countries currently spend about half the amount the US spends on healthcare, measured as a % of GDP. On the basis of those figures, they assert that a universal scheme will save the US a lot of money. So the question is a very simple one: can the US manage to do what everyone else has done, or is it incapable of achieving the same results? The figures DS is demanding are nothing more than a red herring. For example, the relevant figures from the UK would date back to pre- and post-1948, the year the National Health Scheme was introduced. Australian figures would be c30 years old. The German system was initially set up in the 1880s. source How useful would data up to 150 years old be in assessing today's healthcare costs? Totally useless for any one who wants to be realistic, but a neat red herring to hide behind for those whose argument is destroyed by the current figures yet refuses to face reality and accept defeat. Percentage of GDP is a ridiculous way to determine if health care is good or affordable. The richer a country is, the less money (typically) it spends on food, shelter, etc. Poor people in poor countries are dealing with food - they don't have time to pay for healthcare. As a society grows more affluent it has more money to spend on other things - like education and healthcare.. And people choose to spend it. This is illustrated that americans spend health care money on boob jobs, rhinoplasties, tummy tucks. Do you have any idea what percentage of American healther care is elective? Of course not. So %GDP is kind of like comparing apples to you know: horseshit.

tweakabelle -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 1:35:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux As a society grows more affluent it has more money to spend on other things - like education and healthcare.. And people choose to spend it. This is illustrated that americans spend health care money on boob jobs, rhinoplasties, tummy tucks. Do you have any idea what percentage of American healther care is elective? Of course not.. Some might find it odd that you choose to highlight the number of boob jobs and tummy tucks affluent Americans choose to indulge themselves with, while ignoring the tens of thousands who die annually because of their lack of insurance cover. Or while others go bankrupt, their life savings home everything swallowed up by a rapacious profit driven healthcare system while the affluent have their pretty noses tweaked to 'perfection' ..... I don't find it odd, I find this state of affairs obscene and barbaric.

Politesub53 -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 3:19:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Original DesideriScuri: If we aren't going to see a huge drop in care costs, then comparing the two systems isn't worth spit. If it can't be shown that care costs dropped after moving to a national health care system, how is it that people think the US will see care costs drop by adopting a national health care model? FFS, The figures are clear enough. The US spends more on health per capita than the NHS. The NHS treats everyone. Its laughable that you want proof that care costs dropped after the introduction of the NHS, they didnt, the reason being only those who could afford it or were lucky enough to go to a charity run hospital got any help. That my friend, was the whole damn point of the NHS...... As I said before, and you missed it, mortality rates have dropped and continue to drop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10718504 FFS is right! The US Government (public dollars, not private dollars) spends more as a % of GDP than the NHS. How is it we're going to add people to that and end up spending less? Can you show me that instituting the NHS caused costs to drop in the UK? If you can't, what basis is there to think that costs will drop in the US? Romneycare hasn't dropped the costs of care in Massachusetts. They were spending more per capita than any other State, and they are still spending more per capita than any other State, 7 years later. What gives? Laughable stuff again DS..... Public or private it is still less per capita for a fully inclusive health system. Sometimes its more about compassion than overall cost, but we seem to have managed to get more compassion and lower costs, not something you will admit to but true never the less.

Politesub53 -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 3:25:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Percentage of GDP is a ridiculous way to determine if health care is good or affordable. The richer a country is, the less money (typically) it spends on food, shelter, etc. Poor people in poor countries are dealing with food - they don't have time to pay for healthcare. As a society grows more affluent it has more money to spend on other things - like education and healthcare.. And people choose to spend it. This is illustrated that americans spend health care money on boob jobs, rhinoplasties, tummy tucks. Do you have any idea what percentage of American healther care is elective? Of course not. So %GDP is kind of like comparing apples to you know: horseshit. Phydeaux Phydeaux Phydeaux........ You are now trying to bring in poor countries, most of which have very little public health servies, to prove a comparison between wealthy western nations is somehow...........horseshit. You do see where I am going with this, dont you ?

Lucylastic -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 5:09:38 AM)
quote: Poor people in poor countries are dealing with food - they don't have time to pay for healthcare. Starvation is a menace , a nightmare, but lets work on "rich" countries, because "charity" begins at home. Poor people in the US are doing the same thing, without intervention they would not eat and not go to the docs unless its an emergency(ya do know food stamps will be cut hard nov 1st dont you?) Poor people in the UK at least can go to the doc, benefits/welfare are being cut, but they can get help from pain, disease, illness Poor people in Canada, at least can go to the doc, benefits/welfare are being cut, but they can get help from pain, disease, illness The same in france, greece, germany, etc etc

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 6:04:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: Original DesideriScuri: If we aren't going to see a huge drop in care costs, then comparing the two systems isn't worth spit. If it can't be shown that care costs dropped after moving to a national health care system, how is it that people think the US will see care costs drop by adopting a national health care model? FFS, The figures are clear enough. The US spends more on health per capita than the NHS. The NHS treats everyone. Its laughable that you want proof that care costs dropped after the introduction of the NHS, they didnt, the reason being only those who could afford it or were lucky enough to go to a charity run hospital got any help. That my friend, was the whole damn point of the NHS...... As I said before, and you missed it, mortality rates have dropped and continue to drop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10718504 FFS is right! The US Government (public dollars, not private dollars) spends more as a % of GDP than the NHS. How is it we're going to add people to that and end up spending less? Can you show me that instituting the NHS caused costs to drop in the UK? If you can't, what basis is there to think that costs will drop in the US? Romneycare hasn't dropped the costs of care in Massachusetts. They were spending more per capita than any other State, and they are still spending more per capita than any other State, 7 years later. What gives? Laughable stuff again DS..... Public or private it is still less per capita for a fully inclusive health system. Sometimes its more about compassion than overall cost, but we seem to have managed to get more compassion and lower costs, not something you will admit to but true never the less. Yes, Polite, the NHS costs less, as a %GDP than total health care spend in the US, but it also costs less than what the US Government is already forking out. We have public spend (government) and we have private spend (not government). UK's NHS is 8-9%GDP? US public spend is around 10% GDP. Where have I ever denied that the NHS has lower costs than the US? Compassion? Your government certainly may be more compassionate than mine. I'm okay with a government being cold and emotionless. I think that's a better government, personally. I don't know that your people are more or less compassionate then mine, though. If our costs dropped by 50% (you know, were more in line with what it costs elsewhere), what do you think the price of health insurance (in the US) would do? What do you think would happen to the affordability of health care, or health insurance? Obamacare isn't going to address the costs of procedures and services. It shifts the cost burden from one group to another. I think that is the wrong way to go about things. A reduction in the cost of providing care (the costs of services and procedures) would help return charitable organizations to having a greater impact, like they were before. Charitable organizations is where I think compassion should come from, not government.

mnottertail -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 7:14:57 AM)
If our costs dropped by 50% (you know, were more in line with what it costs elsewhere), what do you think the price of health insurance (in the US) would do? What do you think would happen to the affordability of health care, or health insurance? The answer would best be summed up as Duhhhhh. Well, if charity is the way to go, then it would seem that as usual, the nutsackers miss the boat by not reducing the cost of procedures and services and whatnot.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 7:59:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail If our costs dropped by 50% (you know, were more in line with what it costs elsewhere), what do you think the price of health insurance (in the US) would do? What do you think would happen to the affordability of health care, or health insurance? The answer would best be summed up as Duhhhhh. Well, if charity is the way to go, then it would seem that as usual, the nutsackers miss the boat by not reducing the cost of procedures and services and whatnot. If it's such a "Duhhhh" answer, then why hasn't there been any advancement towards that? It would seem that our elected officials aren't smarter than "Duhhhh."

mnottertail -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 8:03:07 AM)
Because lobbyists and corporations funnel the money that gets them elected, not the citizenry.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 8:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Because lobbyists and corporations funnel the money that gets them elected, not the citizenry. So, we have "Duhhhh" because our government can be bought. Wonder how that is corrected, then?

Phydeaux -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 4:50:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Percentage of GDP is a ridiculous way to determine if health care is good or affordable. The richer a country is, the less money (typically) it spends on food, shelter, etc. Poor people in poor countries are dealing with food - they don't have time to pay for healthcare. As a society grows more affluent it has more money to spend on other things - like education and healthcare.. And people choose to spend it. This is illustrated that americans spend health care money on boob jobs, rhinoplasties, tummy tucks. Do you have any idea what percentage of American healther care is elective? Of course not. So %GDP is kind of like comparing apples to you know: horseshit. Phydeaux Phydeaux Phydeaux........ You are now trying to bring in poor countries, most of which have very little public health servies, to prove a comparison between wealthy western nations is somehow...........horseshit. You do see where I am going with this, dont you ? No honestly, I don't have a clue. You're making my point for me. Poor people spend little on health care Rich people spend more. Suggestions that American healthcare is bad because americans spend more money as a % of GDP on healthcare is a misleading statistic solely designed to say that government healthcare is a better solution irrespective of whether it is or not. It fails - not only for the reason alluded to but for numerous other reasons. England does not have a population as overweight as the US. Most other countries did not have the same percentage of people involved in illegal drugs, in smoking. Many wealthy countries did not have such huge problem with illegal aliens. As mentioned the US spends way more than most other countries on elective procedures. So, I find that the entire %of gdp argument that the us is deceptive, meant only to say that we should move to a single payer system. People do not talk about that if you have cancer or heart disease and you are treated in the us - generally speaking the comparative outcomes are better than anywhere in the world. Now. If you want to say that we should do more to help poor people have healthcare - I'm all in favor. If you want to have a discussion on how to fund it - again - all in favor. Just don'pass a law that categorically means that americans will be losing their insurance and pass it off as if they won't. Have an honest debate on the matter.

Politesub53 -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 5:58:23 PM)
Laughable stuff about weanting an honest debate Phydeaux. Most of your post is bullshit, with not a link or a fact to support your claims. As for cherry picking individual health problems to try and back up such an absurd post, good luck with that. Overall, life expectancy is higher in the UK than the US, not that facts matter, overall you spend more per capita than we do, not that facts matter. What was that about wanting an "honest debate" ? DS, according to this link your figures about GDP% spending are incorrect. Please note that per Capita and % of GDP are not the same thing anyway, but you are spending 17% of GDP and not 10% as you claim. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

DesideriScuri -> RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health insurance! (10/30/2013 6:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Laughable stuff about weanting an honest debate Phydeaux. Most of your post is bullshit, with not a link or a fact to support your claims. As for cherry picking individual health problems to try and back up such an absurd post, good luck with that. Overall, life expectancy is higher in the UK than the US, not that facts matter, overall you spend more per capita than we do, not that facts matter. What was that about wanting an "honest debate" ? DS, according to this link your figures about GDP% spending are incorrect. Please note that per Capita and % of GDP are not the same thing anyway, but you are spending 17% of GDP and not 10% as you claim. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country Public and Private spend are not the same things, Polite. Total spend is 17% according to your link. According to your link, 46.9% of our spend is by private companies (ie. NOT public spend). That leaves Public spend at 53.1%, or - gets out his handy dandy mathemagical doohickey - 9.531%GDP. Please see my post here where I broke down quite a bit of stuff and linked to it all. These links are where I came up with the "about 10%" figure (17.9%GDP is total spend and public portion is 60-65% of that). Even according to your link, though, government expenditure in the US is still over a full percentage point higher than it is in the UK. And for that, we don't have full coverage, like the UK. How will adding the rest of the American population result in a reduction of Public expenditure (as a %GDP)?

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625