Now I have to agree somewhat with Gbaji.....as much as my Obama bumper sticker might not like it.
I like the whole eating out and splitting the check analogy. If I only get a cheese burger, but my friend gets onion petals, steak, an icecream sundae, and something for take out, why should I split the check?
Now if he is starving, and eats the biggest steak(gets hit by a bus and needs lots and lots of medical attention) on the menu, because he NEEDED!!!!!!!! Its alright, because my buddy was hungry. As long as he eats desert(takes care of himself), then if he wants to come gets some onion petals(prescription medicine), then I don't care.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Healthcare on the back of a napkin
Healthcare on the back of a napkinFollow
gbaji wrote:
The first is the conservative approach. Let each person choose what meal they want, and pay for it.
The second is the liberal approach. Everyone shares the cost, but ultimately we have to set rules on how much each can have so that no one's screwed.
Lol. Remind me never to go out for dinner with you. I find the splitting of bills to be completely abhorrent, and I would never take someone out for dinner (or be taken out for dinner) and expect to restrict what I (or they) choose to order, because of some personal notion of 'fairness'.
Having said that tho', I believe that what you give, always comes back to you in one form or another. maybe not always in the form of a reciprocated restaurant bill, but in some other, and just as welcome form.
Do all Conservatives expect to 'split' the bill?? Its a pretty fu'cking tight way of behaving imo. that must be why liberals (and hippies) are better hosts....
Edited, Sep 3rd 2009 3:27am by paulsol
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
gbaji wrote:
Let me put it another way, why should I pay to provide additional health costs incurred by someone who is actively doing things which increase said costs? It's like if you and I went to a restaurant and agreed to split the tab, and you order a 15 dollar meal, and I order a 40 dollar meal. You might be a bit miffed, right?
Luckily, I'm a grown-up who places health care over eating out at restaurants and so my reaction to knowing that my tax dollars are going towards someone's medical care is different than my reaction to you deciding to indulge in a giant steak at a restaurant.
Quote:
Setting aside issues of ability to pay at all, the result of the second choice is a reduction of the freedom of the individual.
Wait a sec... now the guy with the $40 meal was the fat, unhealthy slob driving up health care costs for you, the poor schlub with the $15 meal. So your argument here really is that we shouldn't give the fat dude any government funded health care because it takes away his liberty.
Somehow I doubt the fat dude with the heart condition will thank you for your selfless defense of his freedoms
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
What exactly would that entail Pensive?
"You really shouldn't eat so much crap you know. It's bad for you. Would you like to attend a totally free dietary course that might show you how to eat more healthily?"
Quote:
Would you support sending people with chronic obesity to "fat farms"? Would you support school programs which detected kids who were overweight and put them into special education programs to help them avoid over eating?
Are you being facetious? Of course I fucking don't. I don't have any idea what logic you used to even pretend that such a thing is implied in my ethos.
Quote:
but does you definition of freedom include having a government tell you what you must do?
Nope.
Quote:
I said that the same moral compass which pushes you to provide him with medical care in the first place, will also push you to try to find some way to change his behavior so that he's not fat in the first place.
This isn't a consequence of any particular moral compass. The very status of ethical claims are prescriptive: every single time you endorse any kind of value judgment, ever, you are forcing your norms onto other people and making them avoid things that you find unpleasant, and making them do things that you do find pleasant. There is no universe in which this is not the case: it's just built into the logic of "ought" statements. Unless you're even past subjectivism and all the way to nihilism, and you aren't, because you at least value "freedom," you, and every other person in the world, is just as guilty of this as I am.
Quote:
I like the whole eating out and splitting the check analogy. If I only get a cheese burger, but my friend gets onion petals, steak, an icecream sundae, and something for take out, why should I split the check?
If you could even get a medical cheeseburger, this analogy might come close to having even the slightest bit of merit.
***
Quote:
Do all Conservatives expect to 'split' the bill?? Its a pretty fu'cking tight way of behaving imo. that must be why liberals (and hippies) are better hosts....
Dude, you just completely agreed with gbaji and told him that he was wrong in the same breath.
Edited, Sep 3rd 2009 12:31am by Pensive
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Do all Conservatives expect to 'split' the bill?? Its a pretty fu'cking tight way of behaving imo. that must be why liberals (and hippies) are better hosts....
Dude, you just completely agreed with gbaji and told him that he was wrong in the same breath.
How so?
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
He doesn't like splitting the check either. He wants everyone to be free to buy whatever they'd like and pay for themselves.
Or wait, how do you mean "splitting the bill?" You could split it by having separate checks, and pay for your own meal, or you could split it by pooling resources on a single check and paying equally.
The only way you couldn't in any sense be splitting the check is if one person pays for the entire thing, which wasn't one of the options, so I didn't think about it.
But it's not right to always have one person pay for everything. If you're meetting someone, or a group of people for lunch, and no one is actually the de facto host, then how would you decide who gets stiffed with paying for the entire thing?
I mean, not that this has anything to do with healthcare, but it's an interesting side topic.
Or wait, how do you mean "splitting the bill?" You could split it by having separate checks, and pay for your own meal, or you could split it by pooling resources on a single check and paying equally.
The only way you couldn't in any sense be splitting the check is if one person pays for the entire thing, which wasn't one of the options, so I didn't think about it.
But it's not right to always have one person pay for everything. If you're meetting someone, or a group of people for lunch, and no one is actually the de facto host, then how would you decide who gets stiffed with paying for the entire thing?
I mean, not that this has anything to do with healthcare, but it's an interesting side topic.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
The only way you couldn't in any sense be splitting the check is if one person pays for the entire thing, which wasn't one of the options, so I didn't think about it.
But it's not right to always have one person pay for everything. If you're meetting someone, or a group of people for lunch, and no one is actually the de facto host, then how would you decide who gets stiffed with paying for the entire thing?
I mean, not that this has anything to do with healthcare, but it's an interesting side topic.
I think you are confused as to what I was sayin'.
My point was that I hate dividing up a retaurant bill and working out who pays what. It seems childish/selfish/trivial. And I don't think that one person does always end up paying.
A lot of the time I pay, but I'm pretty sorted when it comes to cash. Some of my friends are not. But I'm not going to not go out for dinner with my friends 'cos they have less money than I do . I would rather they come, have a good time, thereby increasing my own enjoyment, and, being good folk, I know that, one day when they can afford it, they will get the bill. It may mean that I end up paying for dinner more often, but I also know that they will do whatever else it is they can do instead, whether its inviting us around for dinner at their house, or paying for the fuel next time we go on a surf trip, or bringing over a 6lb trout over that they caught over for us (Cheers for that bruv, yum!
)..... Its about believing that the more you give, the more you get back.
Its quite a nice way of life that leads to being surrounded by lots of people who do nice things for each other, and I would reccomend it to anyone.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
I'd like to see how much the public safety net option might reduce the costs for emergency medical care currently picked up on the government's tab. I'd also like to see what they plan to do vis a vis illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders. (I.E. if they'll have to pay in or something along those lines. I'm not sure how Canada handles it, but we may want to look into that.)
From the slides, I think the co-op option is fairly interesting. IIRC one of the best, and one of those consulted for their views on the health care plan(s), is in my area. They actually found that people go to the doctor less when they aren't forced to "get their money's worth" from private insurers, and that could help manage costs.
Edited, Sep 2nd 2009 11:20pm by Kelbar
From the slides, I think the co-op option is fairly interesting. IIRC one of the best, and one of those consulted for their views on the health care plan(s), is in my area. They actually found that people go to the doctor less when they aren't forced to "get their money's worth" from private insurers, and that could help manage costs.
Edited, Sep 2nd 2009 11:20pm by Kelbar
Another interesting side topic. Apparently, the first government run healthcare plan was signed by President John Adams, yes, the great Federalist founding father himself.
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/cp/vol-09/no-01/rao/
The government run hospitals were for private sailors (NOT members of the Navy). Their wages were garnished at 1%, so that if they were sick or injured, they could go to the hospital for free.
Edit:
From the slides, I think the co-op option is fairly interesting.
Co-ops are already legal. They do not work for the same reason Wal-mart crowds out mom and pop shops when it moves into a new town. The small businessman cannot compete with the big boys, except in small niche markets, where the existing co-ops already are.
Edited, Sep 3rd 2009 2:37am by catwho
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/cp/vol-09/no-01/rao/
The government run hospitals were for private sailors (NOT members of the Navy). Their wages were garnished at 1%, so that if they were sick or injured, they could go to the hospital for free.
Quote:
The federal customhouses efficiently collected the marine hospital tax. Rough estimates suggest that from 1800 to 1812, mariners’ wages fluctuated from fifteen to twenty dollars per month. Marine hospital taxes constituted a withholding of between 1 and 1.33 percent per month. In these years, tax collection peaked in 1809 at $74,192, the majority of which came from New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston—a trend that would continue throughout most of the century. On the strength of the marine hospital tax, the federal government established a network of hospitals and other health care facilities for the merchant marine.
Edit:
Quote:
From the slides, I think the co-op option is fairly interesting.
Co-ops are already legal. They do not work for the same reason Wal-mart crowds out mom and pop shops when it moves into a new town. The small businessman cannot compete with the big boys, except in small niche markets, where the existing co-ops already are.
Edited, Sep 3rd 2009 2:37am by catwho
Quote:
Co-ops are already legal. They do not work for the same reason Wal-mart crowds out mom and pop shops when it moves into a new town. The small businessman cannot compete with the big boys, except in small niche markets, where the existing co-ops already are.
Feel free to point out to me where I said they weren't. I don't think "legality" is coming into play anywhere in this discussion that I've seen.
And that's real interesting. You should probably check the Washington Post's writeup on it, Group Health, Health Partners and other co-ops around the country are succeeding, even when up against your "walmarts."
I'll bet that has something to do with cost effectiveness and fewer costs passed on to employers.
Edited, Sep 3rd 2009 1:25am by Kelbar
Pensive wrote:
. The punishment for leading an unhealthy lifestyle is being fat and dying early due to persistent medical problems, and that punishment is already built into the lifestyle of being sedentary; the evil of being fat and unhealthy is not something proportional with the punishment of refusing to @#%^ing treat you and letting you die or go bankrupt.
Just to set something straight... the lack of physical activity we see in modern-day life is NOT the main cause of being fat in our society. It is a common fallacy that it is, but it is actually overconsumption that adds by far the most to our weight problem. We had an entire thread on this topic before
Not to say it ISN'T a problem, but the punishment you describe is much more built into a culture of overconsumption than of a sedentary lifestyle. The more you!
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
Slide 23 is wrong. We know Europe-style care is vastly cheaper (2-3 times cheaper, per person, including even those not paying now) for comparable results.
Slide 23 had nothing to do with this though. It simply states the obvious fact that employed people with coverage pay for the coverage they get. Even with the government as a payer, they get their money via taxes and thus, those who are employed (and presumably also covered by the government plan) are the ones who pay. Unless you're saying that unemployed people pay for health care under any system, this slide is 100% accurate.
Gbaji is wrong on many points. Let me point out just one: if we go to a Europe-style system, it is the current payer who will save the money.
What gbaji is saying is analogous to saying: when the price of gas drops it is the people who buy gas who pay for that change. No, they are the ones who save the difference.
The rest of gbaji's points are equally wrong. I'll skip to the highlight.
Quote:
And none of the slides cover the moral desire to help prevent the great suffering and death of the uninsured.
Yes. Because it wasn't about that.[/quote]
I know gbaji would like this to be the case. I know s/he would like to not have any moral consequence for his/her actions.
Sadly, however, advocating a system which kills 18000 people per year does indeed have moral consequences.
yossarian wrote:
I know gbaji would like this to be the case. I know s/he would like to not have any moral consequence for his/her actions.
Sadly, however, advocating a system which kills 18000 people per year does indeed have moral consequences.
Like he cares. He wont even go out for dinner unless everyone pays their own bill, in case he gets stiffed by someone who eats more than he does!
Based on that alone, it becomes obvious as to why he wouldnt want to possibly end up in a position where he might be paying for some old ladies hip-replacement.
I wonder if bill paying habits in restaurants have a definate corelation to which way you lean politically??
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
I wonder if bill paying habits in restaurants have a definate corelation to which way you lean politically??
Doubt it. My grandmother refuses to let anyone else pay for a dinner, whether it's at a nice steakhouse or an ihop. She and my father will often argue about who gets the privilege of paying the tab.
No Room For Centrists in the Healthcare Debate
Interesting coverage of a town hall in NJ. Highlights include general douchbaggery, complete ignorance of the facts (on both sides), & a middle aged women in a wheelchair getting heckled.
Interesting coverage of a town hall in NJ. Highlights include general douchbaggery, complete ignorance of the facts (on both sides), & a middle aged women in a wheelchair getting heckled.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Recent Visitors: 287
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (287)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Healthcare on the back of a napkin
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC