Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Whistleblowers and Obama Health Care


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Sure. I know its just semantics, but one gives the Federal Government a new power, whereas the other just uses existing powers.

Edit- However, this is just a still-somewhat-sleepy-off-the-cuff answer. I might have reservations about it, that just havent come to me yet.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
if you were able to find a country that was comparable to the US

No.

Stop.

First, you don't have a real definition of "comparable". You have an arbitrary definition - part of the criteria of which includes "Must not be like any country that actually exists" - and your definition will shift freely as counter-examples are presented so that you can constantly reassure yourself that you remain correct in your assumptions.

Second, many of the countries that have universal health insurance already are nothing like one another! Clearly, being similar to everyone else is not actually a requirement for making universal health insurance work.

Scott, use this definition of 'comparable' - must be the same population as ours (+/- 10%) and same geographic size as ours (+/- 10%).

Justify that definition, and justify why comparability is a requirement for getting it to work for the United States when it has never been a requirement for any other country to get it to work for them.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gendo wrote:


My question would be: Why is that there ONLY source of retirement income? Why didn't they have a back up plan? My Grandmother, born in 1912 and passed away in 1993, saved for retirment her entire working career. SS was a supplement, not the only source for her. My Great Aunt Catherine, born in 1922 and passed away in 1998, did the same thing, even though she earned an awesome pension from her time as a switch board operator. SS was a small bit of supplemental income. Were they unique? Or were they just smart?
Or were they just lucky?

We should stop striving for personal accountability/responsibility, its all just a matter of luck!

I don't think any society would get very far on that attitude.

I do value community (which is one of the reasons I'm a libertarian) and, so, am a strong believer in people helping each other (as a matter of moral 'should', not government enforcement), but I also have a low opinion of the idea that we should just do away with personal responsibility/accountability on the basis that its all just luck.

Luck- or its absence- cannot be ignored.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?
Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.

Far, far easier said than done. Things go wrong in life, and to offer such simplistic solutions as gospel is crude.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:

We should try Communism then. It's never been tried in a country comparable to the US.

I agree.

That'll be the day. :P


Hitdice wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Meatrace wrote:
I mean, I've never been in legal trouble, but I don't think we should get rid of the public defenders' office. I've never had my house broken into, but I'm not advocating getting rid of police services. We pay for ALL KINDS OF STUFF that, should you be a responsible citizen, you probably will never need.

Why are these the only two options: insurence of freeloading. I've gotten sick when i didn't have health insurance and managed to pay for it.

Really? Cause aside from one surgery provided at an extremely low price by a local surgeon, I've just gotten sick when I didn't have health insurance and managed to live through it without treatment.

This whole idea that I'm freeloading because my job doesn't provide medical insurance is insulting to say the least. Does anyone really think I'm getting away with something because my only option is to wait until a problem is so grave that it requires treatment at the emergency room?

I'm honestly baffled that, given the number of examples of functional systems in Europe, the American government would choose require insurance rather than provide decent coverage. That said, I'll take what coverage I can get at this point.

People who get a cold and don't go to the doctor aren't the issue.

People who get a cold and go to the doctor are technically the issue, but that's so small as to not matter.

People who get in a car accident, require several major surgeries are the issue.

When I was in high school I broke both my tibia and fibia. I was playing basketball and a very obese student was backpedaling when he tripped on me and landed on my leg. I didn't black out, but the pain was so intense that it's really the only thing I can remember clearly. The school called an ambulance and sent me to a hospital, my parents met me there. That day alone cost $18,000, not to mention the 6 months of care that followed. If you had a kid and that happened to you, how would you pay for it?

What if your kid/spouse/you were diagnosed with cancer that required aggressive treatment, which can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 very easily. Prostate surgery generally runs around $40,000 (probably 30-70 for the full range of one surgery).

What is your current plan to pay for one of these kinds of problems?

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

So here's my 2cp on the issue.

As has been pointed out, hospitals are legally required to treat people who don't have insurance or are otherwise unable to pay, at least in emergency situations. We do this for a number of reasons, and I am unsure anyone in this thread wants to enact a "let them bleed" policy.

The problem you seem to have in comprehending the evolution of this thread is that there are at least two individuals that would be quite happy with a let them bleed" policy.

Shadow Lodge

Irontruth wrote:
People who get in a car accident, require several major surgeries are the issue.

Medical Coverage on the auto insurence/suing the bastard who hit me.

Quote:
What if your kid/spouse/you were diagnosed with cancer that required aggressive treatment, which can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 very easily

Medicaid and social security which I already pay into and will otherwise never live to use.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber

I forgot to mention one thing about the UK system:

Universal buy-in and cutting out insurance companies means it is relatively cheap per-person.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Medicaid and social security which I already pay into and will otherwise never live to use.

And after you get declined?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[

Darkwing Duck wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?
Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.

And if I don't own a house and rent the cheapest apartment I can afford?

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
[
Darkwing Duck wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?
Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.
And if I don't own a house and rent the cheapest apartment I can afford?

Let's cut to the chase, according to the "Let You Bleed" crowd, a philosphy also known as Social Darwinism, if you can't afford your own health care, you don't deserve to live. Social Darwinists essentially believe that we only encourage societal decay by maintaining those that aren't fit to pull their weight, physically, financially, and mentally.


LazarX wrote:
meatrace wrote:

So here's my 2cp on the issue.

As has been pointed out, hospitals are legally required to treat people who don't have insurance or are otherwise unable to pay, at least in emergency situations. We do this for a number of reasons, and I am unsure anyone in this thread wants to enact a "let them bleed" policy.
The problem you seem to have in comprehending the evolution of this thread is that there are at least two individuals that would be quite happy with a let them bleed" policy.

I'm sure there is a way you could have phrased that that didn't insinuate that I'm an imbecile, but I take your point. However, I would say that even those who have espoused that opinion might feel otherwise when confronted in the real world and not the internet jerk-zone, which was what I was getting at with the word "unsure."


Your response, DD?

LazarX wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
[
Darkwing Duck wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?
Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.
And if I don't own a house and rent the cheapest apartment I can afford?
Let's cut to the chase, according to the "Let You Bleed" crowd, a philosphy also known as Social Darwinism, if you can't afford your own health care, you don't deserve to live. Social Darwinists essentially believe that we only encourage societal decay by maintaining those that aren't fit to pull their weight, physically, financially, and mentally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
[
Darkwing Duck wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?
Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.
And if I don't own a house and rent the cheapest apartment I can afford?
Let's cut to the chase, according to the "Let You Bleed" crowd, a philosphy also known as Social Darwinism, if you can't afford your own health care, you don't deserve to live. Social Darwinists essentially believe that we only encourage societal decay by maintaining those that aren't fit to pull their weight, physically, financially, and mentally.

Well, this may come to a shock to you, but I totally get where the social darwinism argument comes from. I can relate, yo. However, they have misplaced values in this one.

I'm not some kind of hippie that thinks that everyone in society is equally useful or needed, a perfect snowflake, but, having some experience being poor and needing medical attention, I don't think bad luck is good grounds for expunging a population.

In other words: can't pull your weight physically, mentally, I can understand (though not agree with) a let them be philosophy. But financially? How is one's financial status any indicator of their genetic fitness?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
People who get in a car accident, require several major surgeries are the issue.

Medical Coverage on the auto insurence/suing the bastard who hit me.

Quote:
What if your kid/spouse/you were diagnosed with cancer that required aggressive treatment, which can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 very easily

Medicaid and social security which I already pay into and will otherwise never live to use.

The American Cancer Society did a study, you are 60% more likely to die within 5 years if you are uninsured when you are diagnosed with cancer. So I'm guessing you're very quick and short answer somehow doesn't work as easily as you are implying.


How about this: I shouldn't have to pay for the military since I don't need defense. Prove me wrong. Without me paying for the military I guarantee I won't be invaded or drone bombed.

Shadow Lodge

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Medicaid and social security which I already pay into and will otherwise never live to use.
And after you get declined?

I appeal it in court the same way I do an insurance company saying "Oh.. he's sick.. quick, drop him!"


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
if you were able to find a country that was comparable to the US

No.

Stop.

First, you don't have a real definition of "comparable". You have an arbitrary definition - part of the criteria of which includes "Must not be like any country that actually exists" - and your definition will shift freely as counter-examples are presented so that you can constantly reassure yourself that you remain correct in your assumptions.

I <3 Scott Betts. :P


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Medicaid and social security which I already pay into and will otherwise never live to use.
And after you get declined?
I appeal it in court the same way I do an insurance company saying "Oh.. he's sick.. quick, drop him!"

That assumes you have the time for a court case and that there isn't a technicality they can hide behind.


LazarX wrote:
Social Darwinists essentially believe that we only encourage societal decay by maintaining those that aren't fit to pull their weight, physically, financially, and mentally.

With generally the "physically and mentally" parts being waived, so as to provide extra emphasis on the "financially" part. And since the #1 predictor of a U.S. citizen's financial success is his or her parents' financial status, social darwinism unfortunately most often (note: NOT "always" or "in all cases") boils down to a genetic craps game.


Hitdice wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Meatrace wrote:
I mean, I've never been in legal trouble, but I don't think we should get rid of the public defenders' office. I've never had my house broken into, but I'm not advocating getting rid of police services. We pay for ALL KINDS OF STUFF that, should you be a responsible citizen, you probably will never need.

Why are these the only two options: insurence of freeloading. I've gotten sick when i didn't have health insurance and managed to pay for it.

Really? Cause aside from one surgery provided at an extremely low price by a local surgeon, I've just gotten sick when I didn't have health insurance and managed to live through it without treatment.

This whole idea that I'm freeloading because my job doesn't provide medical insurance is insulting to say the least. Does anyone really think I'm getting away with something because my only option is to wait until a problem is so grave that it requires treatment at the emergency room?

I'm honestly baffled that, given the number of examples of functional systems in Europe, the American government would choose require insurance rather than provide decent coverage. That said, I'll take what coverage I can get at this point.

Lets say that if you get in a car accident and need major surgery, that that surgery is going to cost you $200,000. Let's say that the chances of you getting in that accident are 1 tenth of 1 percent over ten years.

So, your expected loss for the decade is $200 (which is $200,000 * .001). Who should pay that?


If making me pay for someone's health care means that I have to cut corners somewhere (perhaps not live in as nice a neighborhood - so increase my chances of being the victim of a violent crime), then shouldn't I have the right to demand that that person eat healthy, exercise regularly, and generally reduce their odds of needing expensive health care?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
If making me pay for someone's health care means that I have to cut corners somewhere (perhaps not live in as nice a neighborhood - so increase my chances of being the victim of a violent crime), then shouldn't I have the right to demand that that person eat healthy, exercise regularly, and generally reduce their odds of needing expensive health care?

I think so -- but then people gripe about bans on saturated fats, and it's not considered kosher (heh) to rail on overweight people the way everyone rails against smokers.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Lets say that if you get in a car accident and need major surgery, that that surgery is going to cost you $200,000. Let's say that the chances of you getting in that accident are 1 tenth of 1 percent over ten years.

So, your expected loss for the decade is $200 (which is $200,000 * .001). Who should pay that?

Let's say that your untreated sore throat develops into bronchitis followed by pneumonia requiring a stay in the hospital. Who should pay the difference between an antibiotic prescription and a hospital stay? Under the current system, the taxpayer bears the burden for both, but the second is a far more likely outcome.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All these problems could easily be avoided if we just overthrew the capitalist class and made free, quality health care available to all.


There was a tv show years ago whose name I forget, but the premise was that a community offered to pay a man's way through medical school. In exchange, the man had to agree to work for the community (in the far reaches of Alaska) for a period of time once he had his medical degree.

I kinda like that idea. A group of people (maybe a business or maybe a town) agrees to pay for a person's way through medical school. In exchange, the person has to promise to provide medical care to this business/town on the cheap for a period of time.

Adjust as necessary for different probabilities (such as the person dropping out of med school or developing a terminal disease).


I'm not saying you're wrong Doodle, but I think you might have left out a step or two there.

(Well, unless you're talking about one of those namby-pamby bloodless revolutions.)


Details, Lord Dice, details!

The show was called Northern Exposure, Citizen Duck, and, I believe it was done by the same guy who did The Sopranos.

Osirion

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
People who get in a car accident, require several major surgeries are the issue.

Medical Coverage on the auto insurence/suing the bastard who hit me.

Quote:
What if your kid/spouse/you were diagnosed with cancer that required aggressive treatment, which can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 very easily

Medicaid and social security which I already pay into and will otherwise never live to use.

Don't work that way. My mom is more than $100k in the hole and that was AFTER she "won" the lawsuit against her insurance "provider" (they were more than happy to take her money but not cover her when needed). We had to retain lawyers in order to appeal the Medicaid and SS decision that said she wasn't eligible. We got lucky and Medicaid/SS had to cover legal costs. During the lawsuits, my mom lost her entire lifes savings. She now has more health issues related to the stress from the lawsuits, that had her insurance "provider" just done their job, she would not have.

I had MRSA and my insurance "provider" refused to cover the ER cost nor the cost of the drugs I needed because I didn't go to the doctor. I called my doctor to make an appointment and when I described the symptoms, the doctor came on and told me go straight to the ER. Lucky me, I ended up going to the VA to get it taken care of.

The problem with Social Security is that there needs to be a law that says it's to be hands off. I don't want to see it privatized. Cause Wall Street just does so well...Let's ask those who lost their entire life savings this last time.

Shadow Lodge

Sanakth Inaros wrote:
I had MRSA and my insurance "provider" refused to cover the ER cost nor the cost of the drugs I needed because I didn't go to the doctor. I called my doctor to make an appointment and when I described the symptoms, the doctor came on and told me go straight to the ER. Lucky me, I ended up going to the VA to get it taken care of.

You realize you're making my point for me don't you?

If insurance companies misbehave that badly (and i see no reason why they won't continue to do so) then why the bloody hell are you going to require that I turn most of my after rent and taxes paycheck over to them?

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Lets say that if you get in a car accident and need major surgery, that that surgery is going to cost you $200,000. Let's say that the chances of you getting in that accident are 1 tenth of 1 percent over ten years.

So, your expected loss for the decade is $200 (which is $200,000 * .001). Who should pay that?

The auto insurance company who have been given WAY more money than that over the course of 10 years.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sanakth Inaros wrote:
I had MRSA and my insurance "provider" refused to cover the ER cost nor the cost of the drugs I needed because I didn't go to the doctor. I called my doctor to make an appointment and when I described the symptoms, the doctor came on and told me go straight to the ER. Lucky me, I ended up going to the VA to get it taken care of.

You realize you're making my point for me don't you?

If insurance companies misbehave that badly (and i see no reason why they won't continue to do so) then why the bloody hell are you going to require that I turn most of my after rent and taxes paycheck over to them?

Real question: you'd prefer a single payer system where you turn over the cost before rent, with taxes?

Edit: that is, yet another fifteen cents a week deducted from your gross paycheck, but you never have to worry about the inflated cost of medicine ever again for the rest of your life.

Shadow Lodge

Hitdice wrote:
Real question: you'd prefer a single payer system where you turn over the cost before rent, with taxes?

I have no problem with a single payer system as long as

1) it comes out of the general fund
2) the general fund remains (becomes?) a progressive system.
3) The parts of government who have no business knowing which part of my body had a camera shoved in it don't get to know which parts of my body had camera shoved in it- that includes the billing information.

Quote:


Edit: that is, yet another fifteen cents a week deducted from your gross paycheck, but you never have to worry about the inflated cost of medicine ever again for the rest of your life.

We're not talking 15 cents here. We're talking 300 dollars a month, which after you pay

-Rent on a crappy apartment
-Student loans
-Cheap ass car payments
-Car insurance

Is a sizable portion of your income. Obamacare only cares how much you make, not where you live. 35,000 a year is enough to put the entire burden of paying for healthcare on you whether you live in new york city or rural Idaho.

Osirion

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sanakth Inaros wrote:
I had MRSA and my insurance "provider" refused to cover the ER cost nor the cost of the drugs I needed because I didn't go to the doctor. I called my doctor to make an appointment and when I described the symptoms, the doctor came on and told me go straight to the ER. Lucky me, I ended up going to the VA to get it taken care of.

You realize you're making my point for me don't you?

If insurance companies misbehave that badly (and i see no reason why they won't continue to do so) then why the bloody hell are you going to require that I turn most of my after rent and taxes paycheck over to them?

My point was in response to your belief that Medicare and Social Security will simply say yes and viola! all taken care of. You miss the fact that my mom went bust and was wiped out by the lawsuits. And she "won".

I was backing "ObamaCare" before it was ObamaCare. I thought that it was a better alternative to the single payer system (aka HilaryCare). But watching the Republicans work hard to defang and make THEIR OWN IDEA useless...A single payer system looks better and better all the time.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
[
Darkwing Duck wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
And if he couldn't afford insurance premiums?
Then he should sell his house and buy one he can afford.
And if I don't own a house and rent the cheapest apartment I can afford?
Let's cut to the chase, according to the "Let You Bleed" crowd, a philosphy also known as Social Darwinism, if you can't afford your own health care, you don't deserve to live. Social Darwinists essentially believe that we only encourage societal decay by maintaining those that aren't fit to pull their weight, physically, financially, and mentally.

Well, this may come to a shock to you, but I totally get where the social darwinism argument comes from. I can relate, yo. However, they have misplaced values in this one.

I'm not some kind of hippie that thinks that everyone in society is equally useful or needed, a perfect snowflake, but, having some experience being poor and needing medical attention, I don't think bad luck is good grounds for expunging a population.

In other words: can't pull your weight physically, mentally, I can understand (though not agree with) a let them be philosophy. But financially? How is one's financial status any indicator of their genetic fitness?

We tried this, it was the first 10,000 to 100,000 years of human existence and it sucked.

Similarly we gave libertarian a go and strangely power still consolidated and that also sucked. They called it the dark ages for a reason.

Crazy as this may sound, flawed as it is, the government is the only institution that has a stated purpose of improving the lives of those under it's purview. Making stockholders rich is a different goal, and generally organizations work toward the goals they set out toward.

The reason we pay more for healthcare is that the people we pay for healthcare have a goal of making money from us higher than providing for our health and well being.

I'm not mad about this. I don't think we should be surprised about it, and I think if serving our best interests is our goal, we should perhaps work with the organization that at least says that is the goal.


ciretose wrote:


We tried this, it was the first 10,000 to 100,000 years of human existence and it sucked.

Similarly we gave libertarian a go and strangely power still consolidated and that also sucked. They called it the dark ages for a reason.

Crazy as this may sound, flawed as it is, the government is the only institution that has a stated purpose of improving the lives of those under it's purview. Making stockholders rich is a different goal, and generally organizations work toward the goals they set out toward.

The reason we pay more for healthcare is that the people we pay for healthcare have a goal of making money from us higher than providing for our health and well being.

I'm not mad about...

You're kidding, right?

The first 10,000 to 100,000 was not 'every person for themselves' and the dark ages was further from libertarian than even we are today.

Shadow Lodge

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

My point was in response to your belief that Medicare and Social Security will simply say yes and viola! all taken care of. You miss the fact that my mom went bust and was wiped out by the lawsuits. And she "won".

I missed nothing.

It is not my belief that Medicare and social security are that easy. Simply that they are AS easy as the private insurance companies. If that is the case then Obamacare offers no advantage. The situation you describe with social security has been my experience with private insurance. Being driven to bankruptcy and dying while you await treatment because a soulless bureaucracy is in between you and your doctor is possible whether said soulless bureaucracy is the government or an insurance company.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:

My point was in response to your belief that Medicare and Social Security will simply say yes and viola! all taken care of. You miss the fact that my mom went bust and was wiped out by the lawsuits. And she "won".

I missed nothing.

It is not my belief that Medicare and social security are that easy. Simply that they are AS easy as the private insurance companies. If that is the case then Obamacare offers no advantage. The situation you describe with social security has been my experience with private insurance. Being driven to bankruptcy and dying while you await treatment because a soulless bureaucracy is in between you and your doctor is possible whether said soulless bureaucracy is the government or an insurance company.

When a healthcare insurance provider habitually makes a mess of things, people can go to one of their competitors.

When the US government becomes an insurance provider and habitually makes a mess of things, who are its competitors?

Osirion

I was responding to this:

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
What if your kid/spouse/you were diagnosed with cancer that required aggressive treatment, which can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000 very easily
Medicaid and social security which I already pay into and will otherwise never live to use.

You made it seem like as soon as "you" applied "you" were approved (you in a generic sense). I was pointing out that that wasn't the case. The only good thing was that the fight with the government was actually shorter than the fight with her insurance company. 13 months from start to finish vs the almost 5 years against her insurance company. The stress it put on her led to other health problems. It also impacted my marriage because she had to move in with us. Now that she's on Medicare/medicaid and Social Security, it's been easier for her to be taken care of. Unlike her insurance company, her doctors haven't had a beancounter tell them how they should treat her. Granted, they have issues with getting paid on time...But when it comes to her health decisions, it's been between her, the doctors, and me.

My complaint is that the GOP did everything they could to destroy their own plan simply because the Dems decided that it was a good idea. Break it down to its constituent parts and americans overwhelmingly wanted it (roughly 80%, depending on the part). Put it all together and suddenly it was a "Socialist takeover". (Oh, NO!)

After what I went through and watched the problems my co-workers have had, I've come to realize that a single payer system was probably the best option.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:

My point was in response to your belief that Medicare and Social Security will simply say yes and viola! all taken care of. You miss the fact that my mom went bust and was wiped out by the lawsuits. And she "won".

I missed nothing.

It is not my belief that Medicare and social security are that easy. Simply that they are AS easy as the private insurance companies. If that is the case then Obamacare offers no advantage. The situation you describe with social security has been my experience with private insurance. Being driven to bankruptcy and dying while you await treatment because a soulless bureaucracy is in between you and your doctor is possible whether said soulless bureaucracy is the government or an insurance company.

When a healthcare insurance provider habitually makes a mess of things, people can go to one of their competitors.

When the US government becomes an insurance provider and habitually makes a mess of things, who are its competitors?

I think you're misunderstanding the situation.

The ideal system would be SINGLE PAYER, not a completely socialized system. In other words, everyone is completely covered, but you can choose what hospital to go to. And ideally the default would be everyone pays into the system, but you could pay for premium above and beyond through a private insurer, which still totally exist in Canada and Europe among other places.

How exactly would the government make a mess of things when all they're doing is regulating the practitioners (which they already do) and cutting checks?

In fact, this system where EVERYONE is involved would look much more like perfect competition than the oligopoly we have at the moment.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Real question: you'd prefer a single payer system where you turn over the cost before rent, with taxes?

I have no problem with a single payer system as long as

1) it comes out of the general fund
2) the general fund remains (becomes?) a progressive system.
3) The parts of government who have no business knowing which part of my body had a camera shoved in it don't get to know which parts of my body had camera shoved in it- that includes the billing information.

I would also prefer a single-payer system. The individual mandate is a bad idea and doomed to failure I think, if it even survives past June.

That said, something has to change. It can't stay the same. I don't care if we take a bad step forward and as long as we're trying to take steps forward.

Historically, I think part of the problem is that when Obama took office he wasn't really ready to lead yet. There are several accounts of advisers talking back and kind of walking all over him. Since then he's gotten more backbone and started to fight a little bit, but too often he's starting from a defensive position and just trying to hold on.

I found the frontline special Obama's Deal to be an interesting look at some of the 'behind the scenes' events that didn't get a lot of coverage that really tanked the single-payer option and lead to the individual mandate. For the political/history buffs, it's a pretty good hour of TV.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:

My point was in response to your belief that Medicare and Social Security will simply say yes and viola! all taken care of. You miss the fact that my mom went bust and was wiped out by the lawsuits. And she "won".

I missed nothing.

It is not my belief that Medicare and social security are that easy. Simply that they are AS easy as the private insurance companies. If that is the case then Obamacare offers no advantage. The situation you describe with social security has been my experience with private insurance. Being driven to bankruptcy and dying while you await treatment because a soulless bureaucracy is in between you and your doctor is possible whether said soulless bureaucracy is the government or an insurance company.

When a healthcare insurance provider habitually makes a mess of things, people can go to one of their competitors.

When the US government becomes an insurance provider and habitually makes a mess of things, who are its competitors?

When the Walter Reed scandal was exposed people lost their jobs. People lost their jobs very quickly as well. It didn't have to wait for a lawsuit or a bad quarter of earnings, it happened as soon as political pressure started to be applied.

If the hospitals received government money, you'd be damn sure that your districts congressional representative would have a big interest in investigating bad hospitals in his district if he could. Cleaning out a corrupt or negligent hospital might be enough to nearly guarantee his next election. On major reason is because the elderly are more likely to both visit a hospital and also more likely to vote. Guaranteeing your district has a better hospital than it used to would be a damn good way to shore up broad support.

Andoran

Darkwing Duck wrote:
ciretose wrote:


We tried this, it was the first 10,000 to 100,000 years of human existence and it sucked.

Similarly we gave libertarian a go and strangely power still consolidated and that also sucked. They called it the dark ages for a reason.

Crazy as this may sound, flawed as it is, the government is the only institution that has a stated purpose of improving the lives of those under it's purview. Making stockholders rich is a different goal, and generally organizations work toward the goals they set out toward.

The reason we pay more for healthcare is that the people we pay for healthcare have a goal of making money from us higher than providing for our health and well being.

I'm not mad about...

You're kidding, right?

The first 10,000 to 100,000 was not 'every person for themselves' and the dark ages was further from libertarian than even we are today.

How would you describe these two time periods?


Forgive me if I'm mistaken, Ciretose, but you made some kind of similar argument last year in which you referred to the Dark Ages as some kind of example of libertarianism-in-action.

I am no medieval scholar, but feudalism, vassalism, serfdom and all those other wonderful things that capitalism smashed pretty much prevent it from being anything like what libertarianism aspires to.

Not that I am in any way, shape, or form, a libertarian.

EDIT: Or, to put it another way, there were no "free markets" until capitalism, and there haven't really been many of them since it, either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, Ciretose, but you made some kind of similar argument last year in which you referred to the Dark Ages as some kind of example of libertarianism-in-action.

I am no medieval scholar, but feudalism, vassalism, serfdom and all those other wonderful things that capitalism smashed pretty much prevent it from being anything like what libertarianism aspires to.

Not that I am in any way, shape, or form, a libertarian.

EDIT: Or, to put it another way, there were no "free markets" until capitalism, and there haven't really been many of them since it, either.

The dark ages had very little to do with what libertarianism aspires to. Many of us think it has a lot to do with what applied libertarianism would lead to.


Perhaps as a metaphor.

Guys like Chris Hedges like to talk about "neo-serfdom," but I don't think that evocative image has anything to do with material reality. Or with an understanding of actual serfdom.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, Ciretose, but you made some kind of similar argument last year in which you referred to the Dark Ages as some kind of example of libertarianism-in-action.

I am no medieval scholar, but feudalism, vassalism, serfdom and all those other wonderful things that capitalism smashed pretty much prevent it from being anything like what libertarianism aspires to.

Not that I am in any way, shape, or form, a libertarian.

EDIT: Or, to put it another way, there were no "free markets" until capitalism, and there haven't really been many of them since it, either.

The dark ages had very little to do with what libertarianism aspires to. Many of us think it has a lot to do with what applied libertarianism would lead to.

Exactly. The Soviet Union had little to do with what communism "aspires" to, and yet it was what it was.

The problems of both fail to address problems that unchecked power, be it unchecked government or complete lack of government, leads to dictatorship.

Individual liberty is great in concept, but when you weaken institutions, power consolidates in monopolistic entities and individuals or collapses into anarchy.

Both suck.


That's all fine and good.

But our existence as a species from 10,000-100,000 years ago cannot be described as "libertarian" or even "every individual for themselves" without doing an incredible disservice to history and our ancestors who, with the rare exception of hermits and lunatics, has pretty much always been a group-living species.

EDIT: There are, imho, plenty of good reasons to attack libertarianism as a theory/ideology/whatever--but ascribing to it features of tribal hunter-gatherers or feudalist serfdom doesn't really help your argument. Again, imho.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, Ciretose, but you made some kind of similar argument last year in which you referred to the Dark Ages as some kind of example of libertarianism-in-action.

I am no medieval scholar, but feudalism, vassalism, serfdom and all those other wonderful things that capitalism smashed pretty much prevent it from being anything like what libertarianism aspires to.

Not that I am in any way, shape, or form, a libertarian.

EDIT: Or, to put it another way, there were no "free markets" until capitalism, and there haven't really been many of them since it, either.

I kind of disagree with you there, Comrade Anklebiter. If you want access to skills, you are going to have to trade other skills for them in a truly libertarian society(or so I have been lead to believe), so yes, there may be a return to such methods if you want access to truly outlandish stuff.

101 to 150 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Whistleblowers and Obama Health Care All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.