Doug and The Thing I will agree to disagree with you. If you are ever in Sydney I will buy you a beer and we can talk about other stuff.
The last time someone on these boards offered to buy me a beer, he stated I'd have to pick up the tip. He was/is apparently afraid of math. Hopefully, you're not as . . . eccentric?
|
I think the biggest opposistion to this proposed Universal Healthcare, that seems to be poised to go through regardless of what the majority wants, is that Obama is hell bent on pushing it through. Despite what the majority of the voters want, he is going after what he wants. Another problem I have, and I'm sure others do, is that even the people voting on the bill don't even know everything that's on it. I think we can all agree that there needs to be some sort of reguation of the insurance industry, something to make heakth care more affordable to everyone in the US. But to ram some personal agenda down everyones throat, to hold closed door secret meetings to find a way to force it on the taxpayer frankly stinks of BS to me.
And before you start jumping on my post and telling me I don't understand how it works because I'm some dumb right wing American, don't. I still stand by the addage "Get your own house in order before you worry after the neighbors."
Now to the part of your post that's relevant: Yes, of course I'm selfish. Everyone is to an extent. But, like most things, there is a middle ground. Any position can be made to look ridiculous by taking the most extreme case (every cent to pay for medical care). No one is advocating that.
Ok, but let's look again at your comment:
Given that, I think a fellow citizen's right not to die in agony trumps your right to a own a new 52" 1080p LCD TV. Yes, even though you worked for it. Taxes aren't robbery; get over it already.
Your comment on its face value is that individuals rights to personal property is trumped by someone else's right not to suffer. Now you suggest that in fact a person's right to personal property is not always trumped by another person's suffering. That there is a middle ground. The question then is where is that middle ground located, and that is really what the argument is all about.
We are taxed (our inalienable right to property is violated) to pay for the military, because that is deemed to be for the greater good.
Seatbelt use is mandated (our inalienable right to liberty is violated) to *avoid* paying for unnecessary catastrophic injuries.
. . .
Strangely, I view that particular situation as someone else's right to life outweighing your property rights. Which I've explained ad nauseam. I understand your side, please stop repeating it. If you understand mine, I think we're done here.
But taxes can be paid in a voluntary fashion, as in a consumption tax, thus NOT violating our inalienable right to property. If fact, when the Consititution was ratified, this was indeed the case.
And I disagree with seatbelt laws. However, insurance companies should be able to put clause into the contract saying "If you drive without a seatbelt, we won't pay your medical bills."
While you believe that someone else's rights are more important than mine, that leads to tyranny of the majority. The inalienable rights are all equally inalienable. The Declaration of Independence didn't say "We hold these truths to be self evident and in order of importance . . . ."
And that whole "greater good" argument is getting old, too (as well as easily proven as an anathema to liberty). If Joe needs a liver transplant, and Joe also is a wonderful surgeon and a community leader as well as a loving father, why should another person's right to life be respected? Why should Hobo Bob be allowed to keep his liver if society benefits more from Joe's life than Hobo Bob's? Can the majority simply determine that, in the interest of society, Hobo Bob must give up his liver?
|
|
I think the biggest opposistion to this proposed Universal Healthcare, that seems to be poised to go through regardless of what the majority wants, is that Obama is hell bent on pushing it through.
...you think that the biggest reason that people oppose the universal healthcare bill is because too many people oppose the universal healthcare bill.
:|
Haha, cute. I think the meaning behind my statment was clear, at least to anyone with half a friggin brain. Obama is determined to push this through despite majority opposistion. That means, since you have a hard time understanding plain english, that even though MOST people do not want a bill that even the politicians voting on it don't understand, he doesn't care. And this makes people angry. Clear enough for you?
Don't snip my post to try and belittle me.
I think another issue, and this goes with most entitlement programs, is that you have some situations where Person A is getting benefits but not putting in a single penny to help, and in fact in some cases getting extra money, while Person B is putting in not only their share but also the share of Person A and the extra money Person A is getting.
Let's say Person A has medical needs that costs $10,000 per month. Person A doesn't earn enough to cover those costs by themself. Others help out to cover the costs (either voluntarily [donations] or involuntarily [taxes]). Let's then say that Person A now doesn't spend any money on their medical needs (having others pay for it) and spends $20 a month on gaming materials for their own enjoyment. Is it unreasonable for those people who are helping to cover Person A's medical costs to feel that Person A is acting ingrateful? I mean if Person A has $20 a month that could be going to covering their own medical costs, shouldn't they spend that first before asking others to help them?
Let me say, I have run into something similar with family members. These family members, maybe due to bad circumstances or due to bad decisions, find themselves in need of monetary help. They ask the rest of the family to help them. The family feels guilty and does give them some money. Later on the needy family member's facebook page they talk about how they went out to a new 3-D movie (more pricey than normal 2-D movie) and how it was great and they had a delicious steak at some restraunt and it was a great day. How do you think those other family members would feel looking at that? Do you think they would be willing to give additional money? I know how I have felt in those situations.
@Spacelard.Sorry to hear about your Aunt, and I'm glad that she is at least comfortable during these times. I wish you and yours the best during what I know from first hand experience to be trying times.
Thanks Moorluck.
Its a good job that we live in a country where primary medical care is free. My wife developed double pneumonia and scepatceamia and had a 10% chance of making it.Thanks to a week in a coma in an ICU ward with her own personal doctor/nurse giving 24hr round the clock care and another two months on a bsic ward she is fine.
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.
This will be the last time I post here as I'm afraid I will breach the boards code of conduct. A certain someone has me seathing with rage.
I just hope they don't die screaming with cancer.
ghost post
|
|
@Spacelard.Sorry to hear about your Aunt, and I'm glad that she is at least comfortable during these times. I wish you and yours the best during what I know from first hand experience to be trying times.Thanks Moorluck.
Its a good job that we live in a country where primary medical care is free. My wife developed double pneumonia and scepatceamia and had a 10% chance of making it.
Thanks to a week in a coma in an ICU ward with her own personal doctor/nurse giving 24hr round the clock care and another two months on a bsic ward she is fine.
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.This will be the last time I post here as I'm afraid I will breach the boards code of conduct. A certain someone has me seathing with rage.
I just hope they don't die screaming with cancer.
Take care, and hope to see you around more friendly threads then.
@Spacelard.Sorry to hear about your Aunt, and I'm glad that she is at least comfortable during these times. I wish you and yours the best during what I know from first hand experience to be trying times.Thanks Moorluck.
Its a good job that we live in a country where primary medical care is free. My wife developed double pneumonia and scepatceamia and had a 10% chance of making it.
Thanks to a week in a coma in an ICU ward with her own personal doctor/nurse giving 24hr round the clock care and another two months on a bsic ward she is fine.
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.This will be the last time I post here as I'm afraid I will breach the boards code of conduct. A certain someone has me seathing with rage.
I just hope they don't die screaming with cancer.
I'm glad things are better.
As a note, in America, she still would have received the treatment whether or not you could afford it. It would have been put on a payment plan that could have fit your budget by the hospital and would not have affected your finances that much. Hospitals must provide the service regardless and will face trouble if they piece together unfair payment plans.
@Spacelard.Sorry to hear about your Aunt, and I'm glad that she is at least comfortable during these times. I wish you and yours the best during what I know from first hand experience to be trying times.Thanks Moorluck.
Its a good job that we live in a country where primary medical care is free. My wife developed double pneumonia and scepatceamia and had a 10% chance of making it.
Thanks to a week in a coma in an ICU ward with her own personal doctor/nurse giving 24hr round the clock care and another two months on a bsic ward she is fine.
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.This will be the last time I post here as I'm afraid I will breach the boards code of conduct. A certain someone has me seathing with rage.
I just hope they don't die screaming with cancer.I'm glad things are better.
As a note, in America, she still would have received the treatment whether or not you could afford it. It would have been put on a payment plan that could have fit your budget by the hospital and would not have affected your finances that much. Hospitals must provide the service regardless and will face trouble if they piece together unfair payment plans.
While there are anti-single payers that throw around ridiculous statements like Hawkins would be left to die in the UK system, there are equally ridiculous statements like the one made above about the US system.
And I disagree with seatbelt laws. However, insurance companies should be able to put clause into the contract saying "If you drive without a seatbelt, we won't pay your medical bills."
Here's the problem with this as I see it. Who pays the medical bills in this situation, if the insurance company refuses?
Should the doctors work for free/reduced pay? I don't think that's reasonable.
Should the family potentially be bankrupted for having made a bad decision? Well, maybe. This is what I understand your position to be. They chose to drive without seatbelts, they should pay for it, and bear the consequences. But the problem is that they aren't the only ones to suffer the consequences. When you increase the number of desperately poor/bankrupted members of a society, society as a whole suffers.
I don't want to give the insurance companies the opportunity to create more poor people. I don't want the police to have to deal with the carnage on the road (from what I understand, they don't want to deal with it either).
Seatbelt laws are no different than speed limit laws, or traffic lights, or any other rule of the road. If you choose to drive a car, you follow the rules of the road. Why are seatbelts the poster child for erosion of personal freedoms? Do you disagree with stop signs?
Seatbelt laws are no different than speed limit laws, or traffic lights, or any other rule of the road. If you choose to drive a car, you follow the rules of the road. Why are seatbelts the poster child for erosion of personal freedoms? Do you disagree with stop signs?
I think the main idea is, that seatbelts help the INDIVIDUAL after the accident has started. On the other hand stop signs prevent accidents from occuring in the first place, and thus stop OTHERS from being harmed.
Here's the problem with this as I see it. Who pays the medical bills in this situation, if the insurance company refuses?Seatbelt laws are no different than speed limit laws, or traffic lights, or any other rule of the road. If you choose to drive a car, you follow the rules of the road. Why are seatbelts the poster child for erosion of personal freedoms? Do you disagree with stop signs?
In the case I described, the insurance company isn't refusing to pay. They are holding to the terms of the contract that was signed.
If an individual does something stupid, that individual should be allowed to experience the consequences of his actions.
Now, will this mean bankruptcy? Potentially, but that is really a starting-over point, not an end point. People go bankrupt, but they don't stay bankrupt. Donald Trump has declared bankruptcy, but he's still pretty rich.
As for stop signs, I think you just posted the dumbest line of the day. Congratulations. (And note that I don't usually say such things; I try to be respectful of people's opinions. But truely, that wins the award.)
Here's the problem with this as I see it. Who pays the medical bills in this situation, if the insurance company refuses?Seatbelt laws are no different than speed limit laws, or traffic lights, or any other rule of the road. If you choose to drive a car, you follow the rules of the road. Why are seatbelts the poster child for erosion of personal freedoms? Do you disagree with stop signs?
In the case I described, the insurance company isn't refusing to pay. They are holding to the terms of the contract that was signed.
If an individual does something stupid, that individual should be allowed to experience the consequences of his actions.
Now, will this mean bankruptcy? Potentially, but that is really a starting-over point, not an end point. People go bankrupt, but they don't stay bankrupt. Donald Trump has declared bankruptcy, but he's still pretty rich.
As for stop signs, I think you just posted the dumbest line of the day. Congratulations. (And note that I don't usually say such things; I try to be respectful of people's opinions. But truely, that wins the award.)
Well, if we're going to veer off into personal insults, I could give it back to you in kind - try to keep it civil, and I won't assume you're a freeper wingnut, ok?
It was a serious point - why are seatbelt laws any different than any other traffic laws?
To address your other point - when people go bankrupt, who bears the cost? The doctors that don't get paid - who essentially then rendered their services for free? The government, who cover the costs with tax dollars? Neither is a terribly good outcome.
Seatbelt laws are no different than speed limit laws, or traffic lights, or any other rule of the road. If you choose to drive a car, you follow the rules of the road. Why are seatbelts the poster child for erosion of personal freedoms? Do you disagree with stop signs?I think the main idea is, that seatbelts help the INDIVIDUAL after the accident has started. On the other hand stop signs prevent accidents from occuring in the first place, and thus stop OTHERS from being harmed.
Stop signs also prevent the INDIVIDUAL from being harmed - it's not always someone else who gets hurt in an accident that you caused. They may walk away fine, while you go to the hospital.
Easily preventable deaths/injury are just that.
edit: Hit submit too fast...
Seatbelt laws also help prevent OTHERS from being harmed. If you hit a car, someone in that car could be ejected and killed (no seatbelt) versus injured but alive (seatbelt).
I think you're oversimplifying things. Stop signs are designed to prevent accidents. Seatbelts are designed to mitigate the consequences of an accident (no matter who caused it). Speed limits are designed to do both. Why is it that only seatbelts are held out as a bad thing?
While there are anti-single payers that throw around ridiculous statements like Hawkins would be left to die in the UK system, there are equally ridiculous statements like the one made above about the US system.@Spacelard.Sorry to hear about your Aunt, and I'm glad that she is at least comfortable during these times. I wish you and yours the best during what I know from first hand experience to be trying times.Thanks Moorluck.
Its a good job that we live in a country where primary medical care is free. My wife developed double pneumonia and scepatceamia and had a 10% chance of making it.
Thanks to a week in a coma in an ICU ward with her own personal doctor/nurse giving 24hr round the clock care and another two months on a bsic ward she is fine.
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.This will be the last time I post here as I'm afraid I will breach the boards code of conduct. A certain someone has me seathing with rage.
I just hope they don't die screaming with cancer.I'm glad things are better.
As a note, in America, she still would have received the treatment whether or not you could afford it. It would have been put on a payment plan that could have fit your budget by the hospital and would not have affected your finances that much. Hospitals must provide the service regardless and will face trouble if they piece together unfair payment plans.
Are you saying that my statement is ridiculous?
Hospitals cannot deny life-saving care because you cannot afford it. It is that simple.
They cannot force you to pay lump sum. There are limitations as to what you can be charged as a monthly fee or else it would be predatory lending. This still has an enormous affect on someone's credit as it is a debt on the records but there are limitations as to what can be done to charge people.
Even if a court judgement is made requiring payment, it will be a reduced amount of the total and there is a maximum monthly amount that can be charged and that maximum is based upon current income. That is how wage garnishment works. This is true for all lending and credit card use including payments upon health care provided.
Further, many people are completely unaware of state and local options that are available to aid in making payment when in a financially difficult situation.
Note: The link will say in Virginia but the same link exists for all the states.
Emphasis added myself...
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy & Medical BillsWhen you have significant medical bills, filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy can eliminate your medical bills completely. If the bankruptcy means test says you qualify to file for Chapter 7, it will allow you to get rid of medical bills, hospital charges, doctor bills, medical collections, dental bills, as well as most any type of medical debt. Medical bills are considered unsecured debts, and are treated in bankruptcy just like credit cards. As such, medical bills can be totally eliminated in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
But, for those who don't qualify for chapter 7 bankrupcy, there is the following (with emphasis added myself)...
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy & Medical BillsIn situations where the bankruptcy means test dictates that you aren’t eligible to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, you may instead choose to file for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. A Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is a court supervised repayment plan which can allow you to keep your most important property while repaying your debts over time. If you file for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy you may be able to significantly reduce your medical bills. Chapter 13 can allow you to repay your medical bills over a 3 to 5 year period of time based on your disposable income. Quite often, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy forces unsecured creditors like medical providers, hospitals, and doctor’s to accept pennies on the dollar.
Hospitals have enormous incentive for setting up a schedule that you can meet. It is better than getting nothing or pennies on the dollar. If they don't, there are still ways to go around it. This is similar for all doctors as well as hospitals.
From 15 tips for paying high medical bills
1. Everything's negotiable. You may be able to get a portion of the bill reduced. A hospital bill typically includes items for surgery, anesthesiology, medications, X-rays and other expenses. Contact information for each should be included on the bill. Try talking to the service providers to see if they will reduce their fees in any way.2. Payment plans. If you can't pay the entire balance at once (and many people can't), work out a payment plan with the doctor or hospital. Some charge no interest; others do. Make sure the plan is realistic and based on your ability to pay. Stick to the plan. If your circumstances change, contact the medical provider and try to negotiate a different arrangement. Get all payment terms in writing by asking the medical provider to send you written confirmation so there is proof.
3. Credit reports. According to Experian and TransUnion -- two of the three major credit reporting agencies -- hospitals, doctors and medical providers rarely report payment information to the bureaus. "Accounts reported by medical businesses account for only .07 percent of our data," according to Maxine Sweet, Experian's vice president of public education. Adds TransUnion spokesman Steven Katz: "These types of debts are not typically reported unless they become delinquent and are assigned to collections." On the other hand, payments on credit cards, installment loans and lines of credit are all reported to the credit bureaus. So working out a payment plan with the doctor or hospital may be a better option for you if you're concerned about medical debt lowering your credit score.
4. Charity begins at the hospital. The majority of hospitals across the country, especially nonprofit hospitals, have charity care programs that pick up all or part of the cost of care for indigent or special needs families. Some restrict such aid to the uninsured or offer discounted services to the insured with limited incomes. Medical bill negotiators complain, however, that the availability of these programs is often poorly publicized in hospitals. Patients must often ask about them and actively seek them out. Don't be embarrassed to ask! Hospitals have financial counselors and patient advocates who may be able to offer advice.
5. Accurate billing. Review the bill. Hospital bills often arrive several weeks after your visit and may be several pages long. Don't put it aside for later. Go through the charges. Are they accurate? Billing disputes should be resolved before putting the expense on a credit card or loan installment. The Citi Health Card offers bill dispute protection for cardholders. Sam Wang, public affairs vice president for Citi, wrote in an e-mail: "If a customer is dissatisfied with the product/service to the point they dispute payment, they should contact Citi. We will then work with the medical provider to attempt to resolve the issue with the service and/or product. If we are unable to do so to the satisfaction of the customer, the transaction is subject to charge-back to the merchant." Ask if the financing plan you're considering has a billing dispute provision.
6. Collection agency calls. Don't ignore them. If your account has gone to a collection agency, you have already received written notice in the mail. Dodging or avoiding the collector will only make matters worse and further damage your credit report. "Even if you can't pay, just call and say, 'I can't pay,' " advises Michelle Dunn, an author and CEO of Michelle Dunn's Credit and Collections Association, a collection agency trade group. "As long as you're having the contact, then the people aren't thinking you're trying to avoid paying them."
7. The fine print. If you have a company-sponsored health insurance plan, pay attention to the details of what's covered -- not just how much the office visit co-pays are, but the lifetime cap, the deductible, and what services are or aren't covered. "In order to judge whether or not an insurance product is adequate you have to look beyond the premiums," says Andrew Cohen, a counselor at The Access Project, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit group that gives consumers advice on resolving medical debt problems. "You have to look at what it covers and the cost sharing."
8. Denial of service. A medical provider may ask you to pay all or some of your outstanding balance before you can make another appointment. This may be less likely to occur if you have been in touch with them and followed through on repayment plans in the past. If you have a long relationship with the doctor, ask to speak to him or her directly to plead your case. Note: By law, if you have a medical emergency, a hospital must treat you regardless of your ability to pay.
9. Local assistance programs. Your state or local government may have assistance programs that can help offset medical costs. Call your city, county or borough government representative or municipal social service agency or community organizations.
10. Support groups. Connect with local support groups and charities. Members of cancer, diabetes, autism or other illness support groups may prove a valuable resource base for finding doctors as well as navigating the complex health care system.
11. A little help from your friends. Feeling overwhelmed or intimidated by the whole process? Medical bills can be complicated as can figuring the best payment options for your family budget. If you're facing a medical crisis, you may not have the time or energy to deal with the fine details, but are comfortable in asking a friend or someone you trust to help. Because of privacy laws, that person will need written permission to discuss the details of your bill with the hospital or doctor.
12. Do your homework. When looking for a new doctor, in addition to asking questions about weekend office hours or board certification, ask about financing options for bill payments. "You want to know the terms beforehand," says Candy Wright, a counseling manager for GreenPath Inc., a Michigan nonprofit consumer credit counseling agency. Ask ahead of time about refund policies if you decide you no longer want the medical procedure.
13. Budget. Budget. Budget. Everyone should have a family budget and have money set aside in an emergency fund. Most financial planners advise having at least three to six months' living expenses in case you are unable to work or are hit with an unexpected bill.
14. Insure against job loss. Consider getting short-term disability insurance, which pays you part of your salary should you become ill and cannot work. Loss of income from an illness is a major factor in many personal bankruptcy filings.
15. Nonprofit credit counselors. Get help. Find an accredited counseling agency to help you sort through the bills and draft a payment plan that works for your family budget. Call The Access Project toll-free at 866-918-5232, ext. 231, for advice on medical debt resolution. GreenPath Inc. can be reached at 866-476-7284. The two major accrediting agencies for credit counselors are the National Federation of Credit Counseling and the Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies. Each has an online referral service to certified local counselors.
Some of these are more useful than others.
But, eight is important because it explicitly details the law regarding denial of service.
One and two are critically important because it allows you to make prior arrangements so that payments can be made.
Nine is incredibly important and often overlooked. I did not realize it until my sister told me she had received such aid. This was relayed to me at a time when I was uninsured but had a hospital stay due to going into insulin shock, i.e. passing out and going into a low blood sugar coma.
If stuck with a heap of bills, non-profit credit counselors can be very helpful as mentioned in fifteen.
But, when the above is combined with the ability to declare various forms of bankruptcy, I think it is obvious that not only is the treatment available but you can receive it without completely destroying your lifestyle unless you are living with extravagances gained in the form of debt.
Are you saying that my statement is ridiculous?
No. The one you were responding to, about the wife who would have been dead if they were in the US. Thank you for further demonstrating the claim made was indeed false, probably made due to ignorance just as people who have made the statement about Hawkins were.
Are you saying that my statement is ridiculous?No. The one you were responding to, about the wife who would have been dead if they were in the US. Thank you for further demonstrating the claim made was indeed false, probably made due to ignorance just as people who have made the statement about Hawkins were.
OK, thanks there.
My belief is that particular claim was made in ignorance (of the US system) by a poster thankful for his family's well being.
Stop signs also prevent the INDIVIDUAL from being harmed - it's not always someone else who gets hurt in an accident that you caused. They may walk away fine, while you go to the hospital.Seatbelt laws are no different than speed limit laws, or traffic lights, or any other rule of the road. If you choose to drive a car, you follow the rules of the road. Why are seatbelts the poster child for erosion of personal freedoms? Do you disagree with stop signs?I think the main idea is, that seatbelts help the INDIVIDUAL after the accident has started. On the other hand stop signs prevent accidents from occuring in the first place, and thus stop OTHERS from being harmed.
True, but you were asking how stop signs were different from seat belts. The fact that both can stop an individual from being hurt is how they are the same, not different, thus why I didn't feel it was worth mentioning. Though, damage to property is an issue with an accident as well, and stop signs try to limit you damaging another person's property, even if they are not physically harmed and you are.
Easily preventable deaths/injury are just that.
edit: Hit submit too fast...
Seatbelt laws also help prevent OTHERS from being harmed. If you hit a car, someone in that car could be ejected and killed (no seatbelt) versus injured but alive (seatbelt).
Ah, I think you trying to split the hair a bit too fine there. If there were not seatbelt laws, that other person could decide on their own if it was worth it to them risk not wearing a seat belt or not incase they were involved in an accident. A much better argument, if you wanted to make it, would be that once a person is thrown from their seat, they can strike other people and cause them additional harm that wouldn't have happened if they had been seat belted. For example, an unseat-belted person in the back being thrown into the front seat, striking the seat-belted people there doing additional damage to their heads.
I think you're oversimplifying things. Stop signs are designed to prevent accidents. Seatbelts are designed to mitigate the consequences of an accident (no matter who caused it). Speed limits are designed to do both. Why is it that only seatbelts are held out as a bad thing?
I think you are oversimplifying them as well. Excluding the case where a person's unseat-belted body strikes another person, the additional damage from being unseat-belted only harms the person who chose not to be seat-belted, whether they were at fault for the accident or not. That extra damage is caused by their own decision.
I removed a personal attack. Please be civil.
Stop signs also prevent the INDIVIDUAL from being harmed - it's not always someone else who gets hurt in an accident that you caused. They may walk away fine, while you go to the hospital.Seatbelt laws are no different than speed limit laws, or traffic lights, or any other rule of the road. If you choose to drive a car, you follow the rules of the road. Why are seatbelts the poster child for erosion of personal freedoms? Do you disagree with stop signs?I think the main idea is, that seatbelts help the INDIVIDUAL after the accident has started. On the other hand stop signs prevent accidents from occuring in the first place, and thus stop OTHERS from being harmed.True, but you were asking how stop signs were different from seat belts. The fact that both can stop an individual from being hurt is how they are the same, not different, thus why I didn't feel it was worth mentioning. Though, damage to property is an issue with an accident as well, and stop signs try to limit you damaging another person's property, even if they are not physically harmed and you are.
Ah, I think you trying to split the hair a bit too fine there. If there were not seatbelt laws, that other person could decide on their own if it was worth it to them risk not wearing a seat belt or not incase they were involved in an accident. A much better argument, if you wanted to make it, would be that once a person is thrown from their seat, they can strike other people and cause them additional harm that wouldn't have happened if they had been seat belted. For example, an unseat-belted person in the back being thrown into the front seat, striking the seat-belted people there doing additional damage to their heads.Easily preventable deaths/injury are just that.
edit: Hit submit too fast...
Seatbelt laws also help prevent OTHERS from being harmed. If you hit a car, someone in that car could be ejected and killed (no seatbelt) versus injured but alive (seatbelt).
I think you're oversimplifying things. Stop signs are designed to prevent accidents. Seatbelts are designed to mitigate the consequences of an accident (no matter who caused it). Speed limits are designed to do both. Why is it that only seatbelts are held out as a bad thing?I think you are oversimplifying them as well. Excluding the case where a person's unseat-belted body strikes another person, the additional damage from being unseat-belted only harms the person who chose not to be seat-belted, whether they were at fault for the accident or not. That extra damage is caused by their own decision.
Ok, I"ll try to avoid oversimplifying things too.
I'm not sure if that's a better argument though. It's a different one, and it does skirt the issue of individual responsibility, neatly.
If accidents were equally dangerous with and without seatbelts, then I would absolutely agree with you and Doug's workshop - a requirement to wear them would be a frivolous intrusion on an individual. But that's not the case. Accidents are provably more dangerous without seatbelts.
I guess here' the question as I see it: Why should society/everyone else have to bear the cost of an individual's bad decisions? Particularly when it is well established that it is a bad decision, and a mitigating solution is so easy, and really doesn't restrict personal choice/freedom in any meaningful way.
Maybe we'll disagree on that last part? I just don't see a requirement to wear a seatbelt as being much different than being required to use turn signals or headlights at night. (and a different beast altogether than smoking or obesity laws, for example)
If I was going to be really extreme (with my tongue in cheek), the roads are paid for with everyone's tax dollars, an individual should be required to do everything possible to keep their blood off of them.
The last time someone on these boards offered to buy me a beer, he stated I'd have to pick up the tip. He was/is apparently afraid of math. Hopefully, you're not as . . . eccentric?
Doug and The Thing I will agree to disagree with you. If you are ever in Sydney I will buy you a beer and we can talk about other stuff.
We don't tip in Australia - Minimum wage is sufficient enough for the average worker to get by adequately. If you get a tip in Australia its because your service has been outstanding.
My Shout (slang for I will buy).
Speaking of tipping; what's up with cow tipping? How much does one customarily tip a cow? 15%, 20? Does it have to be so generous that the cow falls over?
- Confused in Seattle
we now return you to the regularly scheduled beating of fellow RPG'ers.
Speaking of tipping; what's up with cow tipping? How much does one customarily tip a cow? 15%, 20? Does it have to be so generous that the cow falls over?
- Confused in Seattle
we now return you to the regularly scheduled beating of fellow RPG'ers.
The stockman, station owner or dairy farmer gets to firmly plant at high speed the tip of his RM Williams work boot in your arse for messing with his cattle.
|
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.
Actually, were she in America, there's a good chance she'd be at M.D.
Anderson getting free care, and much superior care than anywhere else in the world, M.D. Anderson being a) the #1 cancer treatment center in the world, and b) required by the state charter that created the center to provide care regardless of ability to pay.More amazing is how many people from countries with single payer are at M.D. Anderson.
Try arguing something you know about before making blanket statements like that.
At his 4:00 PM EST press conference, Stupak, flanked by six or eight other Democrats announced that he and the Dems had reached a deal on abortion provisions and that he and his fellow anti abortion holdouts would be voting yes. This gives the Dems more than enough votes to pass the house bill.
It was a serious point - why are seatbelt laws any different than any other traffic laws?
To address your other point - when people go bankrupt, who bears the cost? The doctors that don't get paid - who essentially then rendered their services for free? The government, who cover the costs with tax dollars? Neither is a terribly good outcome.
Seatbelt laws do not prevent accidents. If you are foolish enough to drive without a seatbelt, you deserve what you get.
Stop signs are designed to prevent an idiot driver from taking my inalienable right to life and/or property.
As for my idea about insurance companies, realize that I only said I support the idea. Insurance companies might already have decided that it is not in their interest to have such a contract. My quick calculations on the back of a napkin say premiums would be lower, since medical coverage is the major cost of auto insurance. But I'm not an insurance company employee, so I don't know for certain.
FYI, government doesn't cover costs associated with unpaid debt that is forgiven during a bankruptcy.
We don't tip in Australia - Minimum wage is sufficient enough for the average worker to get by adequately. If you get a tip in Australia its because your service has been outstanding.
My Shout (slang for I will buy).
Fair enough. Cheers.
It was a serious point - why are seatbelt laws any different than any other traffic laws?
To address your other point - when people go bankrupt, who bears the cost? The doctors that don't get paid - who essentially then rendered their services for free? The government, who cover the costs with tax dollars? Neither is a terribly good outcome.
Seatbelt laws do not prevent accidents. If you are foolish enough to drive without a seatbelt, you deserve what you get.
Stop signs are designed to prevent an idiot driver from taking my inalienable right to life and/or property.
As for my idea about insurance companies, realize that I only said I support the idea. Insurance companies might already have decided that it is not in their interest to have such a contract. My quick calculations on the back of a napkin say premiums would be lower, since medical coverage is the major cost of auto insurance. But I'm not an insurance company employee, so I don't know for certain.
FYI, government doesn't cover costs associated with unpaid debt that is forgiven during a bankruptcy.
I never said or implied (or never meant to, anyway) that seatbelt laws prevented accidents, only that they mitigate the severity of them. I understand where you're coming from with the sentiment, as much as I disagree with it. Would you say the same for a passenger with diminished capacity to make decisions? Should they suffer the consequences for a bad decision?
Just as stop signs are as you say, so are seatbelt laws an attempt to lower the cost to society. People can ignore a stop sign as easily as they can refuse to put on a seatbelt - enforcement or the threat of enforcement is necessary in both cases.
Premiums may be lower, but it could also create a situation that is ripe for abuse - insurance company doesn't feel like paying? Clearly the individual was not wearing their seatbelt. Don't like it? Tough or see you in court if you can afford to sue us. The abuse could be a two way street - it's just as easy to imagine someone lying to their insurance company that they were wearing their seatbelt, which would raise operating costs.
I realize that government doesn't actually currently cover costs of a bankruptcy, it was meant as a nebulous hypothetical (sorry, I realize that that wasn't clear from the way it was worded). The cost goes somewhere - I don't know who would be left holding the bag for that - doctors? medicare (which would be the government)? a private insurance company? the next patients who all have their fees increased so the doctors aren't stuck with the costs?
I understand the arguments that people should be free to make bad decisions, and I even support that in a number of cases. This is one case that I don't see the point or that the infringement on personal freedoms matters at all.
|
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.Actually, were she in America, there's a good chance she'd be at M.D.
Anderson getting free care, and much superior care than anywhere else in the world, M.D. Anderson being a) the #1 cancer treatment center in the world, and b) required by the state charter that created the center to provide care regardless of ability to pay.More amazing is how many people from countries with single payer are at M.D. Anderson.
Try arguing something you know about before making blanket statements like that.
One thinks the same can be said of you.
Hospitals to Patients: Pay Us Now, or We Won’t Treat You
Seems that M.D. Anderson is also not treating people unless they pay up front.. which brings me to another reason why our NHS is superior.
You don't have people going to the ER with serious injuries, the hospitals spending a lot of money on helping those people, and then the hospitals discovering that the patient cannot pay at all. This, naturally, means the hospital will lose a lot of money. Emergency Room care like that remains unfunded. A single payer system like the NHS doesn't have that problem, as it's the government, not individuals, who pays.
ghost post
|
|
...as it's the government, not individuals, who pays.
This is another disconnect. Government can't pay for anything. Governments do not earn money. They take money from individuals who earn money. Now, if you want to say a bunch of other individuals paid for the service, that's cool, but government didn't pay for jack.
If M.D. Anderson denied admittance to that patient without upfront money, then they had money. M.D. Anderson cannot, by state law (it is a branch of the University of Texas, with a very specific charter) turn away people without the means to pay.
|
|
...as it's the government, not individuals, who pays.
This is another disconnect. Government can't pay for anything. Governments do not earn money. They take money from individuals who earn money. Now, if you want to say a bunch of other individuals paid for the service, that's cool, but government didn't pay for jack.
If M.D. Anderson denied admittance to that patient without upfront money, then they had money. M.D. Anderson cannot, by state law (it is a branch of the University of Texas, with a very specific charter) turn away people without the means to pay.
I take it you didn't read the article then? Lisa Kelly shows up at M.D. Anderson, gets told she has to pay upfront for treatment. Going by this article 4,200 out of the 4,900 hospitals in America are requiring the same for non-emergency care. Better hope that insurance policy is up to scratch. Or that you don't get put through Rescission. Cause if you're under insured, those costs will bankrupt you. No wonder you've got people faced with selling their homes to pay for much needed healthcare.
And why has this change happened? Because of uncompensated care, which in 2007 was sitting at $34 Billion. That's quite a bit of money lost from your healthcare system, due to under insurance and the uninsured taking advantage of emergency care, or due to medical bankruptcies. So yeah, Lisa Kelly had the ability to pay some of her health care, but not all. Having to find $60,000 upfront to get Chemotherapy is an abominable situation, and she was turned away until she could find that money.
Finally, Governments do earn money. Through taxation, taking on debts or even Seigniorage. They do also spend that money, through public expenditure. I mean, I'm pretty sure the government paid for the road I'm currently looking at, the street lights to light it up etc, etc, etc.
|
|
...as it's the government, not individuals, who pays.
This is another disconnect. Government can't pay for anything. Governments do not earn money. They take money from individuals who earn money. Now, if you want to say a bunch of other individuals paid for the service, that's cool, but government didn't pay for jack.
If M.D. Anderson denied admittance to that patient without upfront money, then they had money. M.D. Anderson cannot, by state law (it is a branch of the University of Texas, with a very specific charter) turn away people without the means to pay.
I take it you didn't read the article then? Lisa Kelly shows up at M.D. Anderson, gets told she has to pay upfront for treatment. Going by this article 4,200 out of the 4,900 hospitals in America are requiring the same for non-emergency care. Better hope that insurance policy is up to scratch. Or that you don't get put through Rescission. Cause if you're under insured, those costs will bankrupt you. No wonder you've got people faced with selling their homes to pay for much needed healthcare.
And why has this change happened? Because of uncompensated care, which in 2007 was sitting at $34 Billion. That's quite a bit of money lost from your healthcare system, due to under insurance and the uninsured taking advantage of emergency care, or due to medical bankruptcies. So yeah, Lisa Kelly had the ability to pay some of her health care, but not all. Having to find $60,000 upfront to get Chemotherapy is an abominable situation, and she was turned away until she could find that money.
Finally, Governments do earn money. Through taxation, taking on debts or even Seigniorage. They do also spend that money, through public expenditure. I mean, I'm pretty sure the government paid for the road I'm currently looking at, the street lights to light it up etc, etc, etc.
No, the government took money from an individual (actually lots of individuals) to pave that road. Now, I know in Europe this is all done voluntarily, and no one ever tries to get out of paying taxes, but here, the only way government collects the money is by threatening to imprison people who don't pay up.
So, not in Europe, where these things never happen, the U.S. Government basically collects taxes the same way a loan shark does. Well, except it is easier to recover from a broken kneecap than it is a prison sentence.
I never said or implied (or never meant to, anyway) that seatbelt laws prevented accidents, only that they mitigate the severity of them. I understand where you're coming from with the sentiment, as much as I disagree with it. Would you say the same for a passenger with diminished capacity to make decisions? Should they suffer the consequences for a bad decision?
Just as stop signs are as you say, so are seatbelt laws an attempt to lower the cost to society. People can ignore a stop sign as easily as they can refuse to put on a seatbelt - enforcement or the threat of enforcement is necessary in both cases.
Premiums may be lower, but it could also create a situation that is ripe for abuse - insurance company doesn't feel like paying? Clearly the individual was not wearing their seatbelt.
If a person of diminished capacity didn't buckle up and broke the law, they'd be in the exact same boat in the event of an accident as if there were no law.
And while people can ignore the stop sign, those signs are in place to protect an individual from taking another's life, which is a clear violation of the inalienable right to life.
A seatbelt law violates the inalienable right to liberty, including the right to be stupid. I am not going to retype stuff I typed eight pages ago. If you need to understand more, including the moronic idea that society needs to violate inalienable rights to promote the common good, please go back a page and start reading.
As for insurance companies, you underestimate the amount of data that is recorded by data boxes on present cars. Those boxes can tell if a seatbelt is buckled or not. But perhaps insurance companies have decided there are good reasons to not have such contracts. Certainly, my current auto insurance company doesn't have that provision. So I guess that's a moot point.
Well, I've got a solution. From now on, everything south of the Mason-Dixon line shall be a soverign tax-free nation, Notaxica. No evil government will impinge on your right to property there. There will be no paved roads in Notaxica, no environmental regulation whatsoever, no schools, no fire department unless you can round up enough volunteers, no building codes, no traffic lights to take away your liberty to seize the right-of-way by force, no regulation of business (your employer is welcome to chain you to a desk and force you to work hundred-hour weeks), and all businesses shall be monopolies that can charge anything they like, and drive competition into the ground by underselling them or buying them outright or by any other means they see fit (I'd say legal or illegal, but the only thing in Notaxica that's illegal is theft).
Hyperbole? Yes, I agree. But there's a fine line between that and some of the arguments on both sides here, so I feel like it's OK to poke a little fun.
<SNIP> That there is a middle ground. The question then is where is that middle ground located, and that is really what the argument is all about.I totally agree; I'm just tired of people insisting taxation is completely equivalent to armed robbery.
|
|
Well, I've got a solution. From now on, everything south of the Mason-Dixon line shall be a soverign tax-free nation, Notaxica. No evil government will impinge on your right to property there. There will be no paved roads in Notaxica, no environmental regulation whatsoever, no schools, no fire department unless you can round up enough volunteers, no building codes, no regulation of business (your employer is welcome to chain you to a desk and force you to work hundred-hour weeks), and all businesses shall be monopolies that can charge anything they like, and drive competition into the ground by underselling them or buying them outright or by any other means they see fit (I'd say legal or illegal, but the only thing in Notaxica that's illegal is theft).
And everything north of the Mason-Dixon line can be run like, well, everything north of the Mason-Dixon line, except now we can shoot carpetbaggers coming down here to get away from hostile business environments and high unemployment!
Seriously, I enjoy the people coming up from the south better than those coming down from the North. At least the ones from the south can't vote to make here like what they're escaping from.
Win-win!
;)
And everything north of the Mason-Dixon line can be run like, well, everything north of the Mason-Dixon line, except now we can shoot carpetbaggers coming down here to get away from hostile business environments and high unemployment!
Win-win!
... or we could maybe accept that "all or nothing," in either direction, isn't a good way of running a nation...
|
|
... or we could maybe accept that "all or nothing," in either direction, isn't a good way of running a nation...And everything north of the Mason-Dixon line can be run like, well, everything north of the Mason-Dixon line, except now we can shoot carpetbaggers coming down here to get away from hostile business environments and high unemployment!
Win-win!
We could, or we could see where government getting involved in the first place (indirectly, through wage freezes) created the situation we have with insurance companies now, and be very cautious about giving that entity even more power.