The Health Care Bill Of Goods
Harvard Med School's Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, reviews pans the just-passed health care bill on that famous right-wing site, The Huffington Post:
Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the House bill is not a "government takeover." I wish it were. Instead, it enshrines and subsidizes the "takeover" by the investor-owned insurance industry that occurred after the failure of the Clinton reform effort in 1994. To be sure, the bill has a few good provisions (expansion of Medicaid, for example), but they are marginal. It also provides for some regulation of the industry (no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions, for example), but since it doesn't regulate premiums, the industry can respond to any regulation that threatens its profits by simply raising its rates. The bill also does very little to curb the perverse incentives that lead doctors to over-treat the well-insured. And quite apart from its content, the bill is so complicated and convoluted that it would take a staggering apparatus to administer it and try to enforce its regulations.What does the insurance industry get out of it? Tens of millions of new customers, courtesy of the mandate and taxpayer subsidies. And not just any kind of customer, but the youngest, healthiest customers -- those least likely to use their insurance. The bill permits insurers to charge twice as much for older people as for younger ones. So older under-65's will be more likely to go without insurance, even if they have to pay fines. That's OK with the industry, since these would be among their sickest customers. (Shouldn't age be considered a pre-existing condition?)
Insurers also won't have to cover those younger people most likely to get sick, because they will tend to use the public option (which is not an "option" at all, but a program projected to cover only 6 million uninsured Americans). So instead of the public option providing competition for the insurance industry, as originally envisioned, it's been turned into a dumping ground for a small number of people whom private insurers would rather not have to cover anyway.
It gets worse, she observes -- if a similar bill emerges from the Senate and successfully mates with the one from the house, expect skyrocketing costs, shrinking benefits, increased deductibles, less coverage and other such fun.
Hope for change! For as little as humanly possible.
More here from the WSJ:
The bill is instead a breathtaking display of illiberal ambition, intended to make the middle class more dependent on government through the umbilical cord of "universal health care." It creates a vast new entitlement, financed by European levels of taxation on business and individuals. The 20% corner of Medicare open to private competition is slashed, while fiscally strapped states are saddled with new Medicaid burdens. The insurance industry will have to vet every policy with Washington, which will regulate who it must cover, what it can offer, and how much it can charge.We have little sympathy for the insurers, or for that matter most of the other medical providers who signed on to this process only to claim now to be appalled by the result. The insurance lobby--led by Aetna CEO Ron Williams--made the Faustian bet that it could trade new regulations for more new subsidized customers who would face a tax penalty if they didn't buy their insurance. The Pelosi bill includes the regulation but guts the tax penalty because it's unpopular. Insurers will thus have to cover more sick people with fewer dollars, as healthy folk opt out of coverage until they are sick.
This writing was on the wall months ago, but the insurers chose to play an inside game rather than shape public opinion. Judging by their weekend statement--criticizing the House bill but vowing to seek "bipartisan" reform--they will now throw themselves at the mercy of the Senate. Good luck with that. The real victims are their customers, most of whom will pay more for insurance as the new mandates raise costs.
My taxes are going to go down when I move to Europe. So let's not talk about European taxation.
Sometimes it feels like we pay socialist taxes for capitalist benefits.
NicoleK at November 9, 2009 4:01 AM
More smoke and mirrors thrown on top of the American Citizen.
Touted as a success. Ten years from now when it costs 5x-20x as much as it was supposed to, these politicians will all be pointing fingers at each other and making a lifetimes worth of excuses.
David M. at November 9, 2009 4:22 AM
Angell wants to establish single payer by absorbing everyone into medicare. But her argument is dishonest - that it will cost less because medicare only has 3% overhead vs 20% for private insurance.
But this claim has been so thoroughly debunked that even the news media wont use it any longer. The only way that you can claim 3% overhead is if you ignore the costs of all of the other government services rendered on behalf of medicare (i.e. those that aren't incorporated in medicare's budget but enable the program to function).
So either she's too ignorant to analyze her own claims, or she's deliberately lying.
Mark at November 9, 2009 5:50 AM
NicoleK: If you are a US citizen, you still "get" to file a US tax return every year, even if you are living abroad permanently. If you earn more than $86,000, you may "get" to pay taxes in the US too.
Maybe $86,000 sounds like a lot, but it's not: the dollar has massively lost in value compared to other currencies. Here in Switzerland, your average janitor makes over Fr. 40,000, and a fresh college graduate will start at Fr. 80,000 or more. Since the dollar is now 1-to-1 with the franc, and still falling, it won't be long before even the janitors get double-taxed.
bradley13 at November 9, 2009 6:12 AM
I reiterate my earlier comment: the power of Obama will cause fewer and fewer people to become sick, saving all kinds of money and making trillion dollar health care affordable. The Huffington Post is simply un-patriotic and, likely, racist.
Pseudonym at November 9, 2009 6:53 AM
See? This is what happens when you drink the Kool-Ade.
Flynne at November 9, 2009 7:28 AM
Anyone who believes that government can solve problems that don't require force should have their head checked for cobwebs.
This bill that Pelosi has shoved up our ass will fuck every small business and entrepreneur in America. It's awfully hard to believe that they didn't see that result coming.
If you do something that you know will cause something bad to happen as a side effect, is that the same as making the bad thing happen all by itself? I think it is.
Thanks, 52%!
brian at November 9, 2009 7:40 AM
It's not too late to tell your Senators to vote no or you will actively work against them. Next year, you can also let your representatives know how you feel.
Dan Maffei can expect me to donate to anyone who cares to primary against him, as well as his Republican opponent. It took Owens, the new guy from NY 23, a whole hour to break his campaign promise and vote for this mess. How do you like being lied to? Letters to the editor work, too. Never forget and never forgive - they are supposed to be working for us.
MarkD at November 9, 2009 7:54 AM
Funny, Switzerland is where we are moving!
My husband is not a US citizen, so he will not be paying US taxes. I will be working, but probably part-time. Even if I get a full-time job, it is unlikely that I will be earning 86chf.
NicoleK at November 9, 2009 8:05 AM
... and even if I did, the fact that my husband's tax rate would not include the US tax would still put us out ahead.
NicoleK at November 9, 2009 8:10 AM
God, if I could get out of this country, I would. It's nearly impossible though, due to the changes in immigration laws.
Anyone in the UK want to commit to a sham marriage?
j/k
Ann at November 9, 2009 9:33 AM
Pseudonym: "I reiterate my earlier comment: the power of Obama will cause fewer and fewer people to become sick, saving all kinds of money and making trillion dollar health care affordable. The Huffington Post is simply un-patriotic and, likely, racist."
...love it!!
the other Beth at November 9, 2009 9:47 AM
NicoleK - Switzerland is a beautiful place, but we subsidize their national defense along with most of Europe's. Let them have to pay the true cost of their own national defense and we'll see how high their standard of living keeps up. Oh, and let a million illegal aliens in while they're at it.
Crusader at November 9, 2009 12:10 PM
"This bill that Pelosi has shoved up our ass will fuck every small business and entrepreneur in America."
Ah, Brian, but they mean well. Is it their fault that things never quite pan out like they intend?
Seriously, our politicians have reached a level of disconnect from reality that is just astounding.
bradley13 at November 9, 2009 12:40 PM
Brian writes: Anyone who believes that government can solve problems that don't require force should have their head checked for cobwebs.
Rural electrification, the FAA, lighthouses, public libraries, food stamps, the WIC program, Guaranteed Students Loans, the Montgomery G.I. Bill, the FAA, Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, Interstate Highway System, National Park System, etc.
All problems that have been alleviated by the government and they don't require force.
Some government programs that require some indirect use of force...Federal Prisons, foreign aid to Israel, the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, etc.
Patrick at November 9, 2009 1:20 PM
Rural electrification, - people should pay for what they want not get it paid for them by others, perhaps if we didnt subsidise things like this our national power grid wouldnt be 50yrs obsolete
the FAA, - Which brought us the TSA, fired overworked underpaid air traffic controllers and replaced them with fewer more overworked and further underpair inexperianced air traffic controlers, and wants a detailed account of who you are where youre going and where youve been
lighthouses, - why are we still paying for these, there nothing more than historic momument, it be cheapr to give every boat owner a naugtical gps unit
public libraries, - have you been to public libraries latley? all the ones around be survive becaus 90% of their budget is donations and vollenteer workers
food stamps, - seriously? the only promblem with the food stamp program is that it exists
the WIC program, - see above
Guaranteed Students Loans, - and this might be one of the reasons why so many college graduates have a lifetime of debt. Perhaps if the government wasnt taxing us to subsides a no bid contract for educaion we would ahve more spending cash, colleges wouldnt charge as much and and the only people going to college would be those who worked for the priviledge
the Montgomery G.I. Bill, - yea it only took em 200 yrs to think about the vets, and nearly 30yrs later they still dont have it right
the FAA, - thats twice you mentioned them
Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, - which didnt acctualy require the banks to pay their premiums
Interstate Highway System, - which is falling apart, arizona is cosidering shutting down all hwy rest stops. Also the fed only givesso much money back to the states which is why it takes five years to expand the highway to the number of lanes needed rather than doing it at once
National Park System, - which allows lobyists to bribe congress to allow corperations to ignore the protections citizens are required to observe
Federal Prisons, - which gives prisoners better food, medical care, televison programing, housing, and landscaping than veterans. Have you seen some of those places?
foreign aid to Israel, - why should the american taxpayers pay to subsidise any counrty?
the FBI,
the CIA,
the Department of Homeland Security - all of which piss and moan about the others hiding information from each other and duplicate each others work and never seem to foil or solve anything
lujlp at November 9, 2009 1:49 PM
Rural Electrification. They do pay for the electricity they use. The government merely paid for the means to bring the electricity to them. You think only urban dwellers should have electricity? What a snob.
And by the way, Brian hinted that the government couldn't solve any problem without the use of force. All of those programs solved problems and didn't involve the use of force. Some of your objections are simply asinine. You don't like the fact that prisoners are supposedly treated so well? Well, let's just open the doors and let Charles Manson and his family run loose, because you think prisons should be medieval dungeons. Federal prisons solve a problem.
And the U.S. is about the only thing in the world keeping Israel from being wiped off the face of the earth. Sorry that bothers you, but it is an example of the government solving a problem without the use of the force.
Heavens to Betsy! (whoever Betsy is) Arizona is closing down rest stops. I guess that means the whole interstate highway system is a total failure and hasn't done a damn thing, like allow truckers to deliver products to various outlets all over the country. And it's actually a decent paying job for without requiring years of education.
And if you think the FBI, CIA and DHS has never foiled anything, you're either willfully dishonest or living in a cave.
Lighthouses, for the most part, are there mostly for show purposes. The point is, once upon a time, GPS didn't exist and lighthouses solved a problem, created jobs and was a government program.
Food stamps and the WIC program do solve problems and they're not the same thing. I much prefer the WIC program to food stamps, because you can't buy any old thing you want. You buy useful staples and healthy foods.
Public libraries allow the use of books and internet access to those who might otherwise be unable to have these things on their own.
Nice use of hysterical outrage to undermine a valid point. Too bad that your objections don't change anything. Each and every government program I named, and more besides, has solved a problem. Quite frankly, your entire post -- especially the B.S. about the National Park System -- sounds like it was made up off the top of your head. And again, regardless of any flaws in the system, whether real or imagined, they have all solved problems.
Patrick at November 9, 2009 2:50 PM
Look into the shale oil drilling pemits bing issued for oil deposits inside of fedreally protected lands
Solving a problem is great, supposing your soultion doesnts create more problems
FBI CIA DHS - terrorists planning to bomb army fort using pizza delvery cracked by CITIZENS
Fort Hood shootings you recall the FBI was "looking into him" but there wasnt an "offical" investigation
My point wasnt that they are useless, though in many cases they are, my point was they are redundant
And for the hmy system, do you recall all those dead people when a bridge collaped into the river?
lujlp at November 9, 2009 5:35 PM
So you shouldn't really be surprised that people are angry about a even further expansion of government into the economy.
Lets not forget that medical spending is roughly 17.6% of GDP so this isn't a small increase. Also don't forget that the growth of medical expenditures is greatly outpacing wages, and economic output so that number is only going to go up. Any kind of true type of reform is going to have to address growing health care costs. In my opinion this bill does the opposite of that.
Health care costs are rising because:
1.) The government is subsidizing heath care spending though employer health care tax breaks.
2.) Because of government mandates which specify which types of treatments health insurance plans must include.
3.) And most importantly because of a system of comprehensive health insurance, encouraged by tax law, which pays for routine things instead of catastrophic events. Coverage of catastrophic events should be the purpose of insurance in the first place.
I mean imagine if auto insurance worked like health insurance currently does. Imagine what would happen if your job provided you auto insurance payed for things like oil changes and gasoline. Pretend for a moment that you and your coworker payed the same monthly amount for your all inclusive auto insurance; regardless, of the fact that you only use your car to drive to work, and your coworker regularly took nationwide road trips. Further try to picture what it would be like if every gas station not only didn't list the price for the gas you were buying, but; refused to even give you a price quote until after you had already filled your tank? Does anyone actually think that gasoline usage and gasoline prices across the United States wouldn't skyrocket under this regime?
If you replace my car insurance analogy with health care then you would have correctly described the current system of payment for health care in the United States. If you don't have a system of health care in which people have both the incentive, and the ability to keep costs down [though competition] then heath care spending will only continue to rise.
Lets be honest. Current health care spending in the USA isn't sustainable, and increasing health care availability by locking in these adverse incentives is only going to make things worse. Conservatives warned that medical costs would rise when Medicaid was instituted in 1964, and they were right. When you give people generous access to a expensive service, and provide no incentives to keep costs down, then costs rise.
There are better alternatives to the current reform that will actually get medical spending under control. Things like: severing the link between health care & employment, and encouraging the use of catastrophic insurance by amending the tax code; allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines to bring in competition and drive down prices; encouraging the use of Health Savings Accounts by changing the strict rules by which their governed now; replacing Medicaid with health care vouchers that can be used to to buy catastrophic insurance; and allowing those in the program to put any leftover voucher dollars into a HSA in order to introduce market discipline into the health care payment process. I like This guy's plan. He's a well respected Harvard economist and what he's proposing is sure as heck a lot more solid then anything currently being talked about in Washington.
But plans like that don't favor the special interest groups currently at the table so they won't get passed.
We can't pay for this, hell we can't even pay for social security. We'll have to deal with this mess sooner or later. I was hoping that it would be sooner before we have to implement large tax hikes, or; large spending cuts and deal with a huge budget deficit.
Mike Hunter at November 9, 2009 8:24 PM
One of the biggest problems with the bill is the provision to prevent people from being refused coverage for pre-existing conditions. This undermines a basic principle of insurance. That is, insurance is to cover you against something that might go wrong in future, not something that already has gone wrong.
If I wait until my house burns down, and then try and take out an insurance policy to cover the damage, and the insurance company is forced to 'insure' me for my pre-existing condition, then we are no longer talking about insurance but rather a legal mandate to effectively do over the company.
I wonder if anyone drafting the legislation has ever heard of concepts like moral hazard or adverse selection.
Nick S at November 9, 2009 8:51 PM
Nick, what about the people who have done nothing wrong, and have a pre-existing condition?
Here's a notable thinker on issues such as socialism on the topic:
What crazy statist would say such a thing?
Whatever at November 9, 2009 9:16 PM
Try not paying your taxes. Force.
It's the only lever the government has. The only one it ever has. And if we allow the government to wield it in such personal matters, we get what we deserve. The government ought to be allowed to wield this force in as few places as possible.
I can't wait for the condom squads to make sure that there's no unprotected sex going on. Gotta make sure that we aren't costing the taxpayers money for AIDS and VD, dont'cha know.
brian at November 9, 2009 9:47 PM
@Whatever -
Then make it fucking insurance. What we have now in the form of HMOs and what the idiot Congress and child President are proposing is not motherfucking insurance.
Anyone who tells you different is either lying, selling something, or looking to control your life.
brian at November 9, 2009 9:49 PM
Brian writes: Try not paying your taxes. Force.
Not good enough, Brian. First every industrialized nation in the world, if not all nations period, tax their citizenry.
Anyway, taxes are not taken by force. The IRS relies on voluntary compliance as they cannot possibly audit or forcibly tax everyone.
Patrick at November 10, 2009 4:11 AM
Whatever, as per the example I gave of my house burning down, it doesn't really matter if it wasn't my fault that my house burned down. Even if I did everything possible to prevent it, it would still not be right to force someone else to make good my losses.
There is a case for the government covering insurance for people with chronic health problems not their own fault, but that is entirely different from forcing private insurers to subsidize them.
Nick S at November 10, 2009 4:24 AM
Taxes are ultimately backed by force. If you don't comply, you face the possibility of civil and criminal penalties.
"Anyway, taxes are not taken by force. The IRS relies on voluntary compliance as they cannot possibly audit or forcibly tax everyone."
That is about as relevant as saying that because the FBI cannot track down everyone guilty of breaking the law, the criminal justice system does not rely on state force.
Nick S at November 10, 2009 4:29 AM
Nick S., learn how taxes are truly "forcibly taken" in other countries, then get back to us.
Patrick at November 10, 2009 5:13 AM
Irrelevant.
"Voluntary" compliance is only such because people fear prison more than they dislike forking over their money.
And if you owe them enough money, the IRS will send armed men to forcibly separate you from your belongings.
This health care boondoggle is nothing more than the government holding a gun to the head of every productive citizen and demanding that we pay for the health care of every irresponsible twit who can't be bothered to stay healthy.
brian at November 10, 2009 5:23 AM
demanding that we pay for the health care of every irresponsible twit who can't be bothered to stay healthy.
What about the mandate that creates a strong incentive for everyone to spend something on their health care?
Whatever at November 10, 2009 7:35 AM
Brian writes: This health care boondoggle is nothing more than the government holding a gun to the head of every productive citizen and demanding that we pay for the health care of every irresponsible twit who can't be bothered to stay healthy.
This statement could work as polemic satire, but getting injured (in an auto accident, for instance) or getting sick (with cancer) is not a measure of irresponsibility. People have been injured or taken ill through no fault of their own.
The idea that only an "irresponsible twit" would become sick or injured is laughable.
Patrick at November 10, 2009 9:31 AM
Patrick writes: "This statement could work as polemic satire, but getting injured (in an auto accident, for instance) or getting sick (with cancer) is not a measure of irresponsibility. People have been injured or taken ill through no fault of their own."
But... but... that's what insurance is for in the first place! Isn't this turning into a circular argument?
Cousin Dave at November 10, 2009 12:31 PM
Cousin Dave writes: But... but... that's what insurance is for in the first place! Isn't this turning into a circular argument?
No, it's not. I take issue that someone is an irresponsible twit for getting sick, that's all.
Can't be bothered to stay healthy? Like health is a choice? Like it's your choice when some drunk mows you down in the street, or you suddenly are diagnosed with cancer or catch pneumonia?
The only thing I want to say about government run healthcare is that if this is what the country wants, so be it. But I keep hearing all these arguments that we're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have it. But this is brought up without pointing out that we pay less in taxes than most other industrialized nations.
You want government run healthcare, fine. Then be willing to be taxed into oblivion to pay for it.
Patrick at November 10, 2009 4:06 PM
"The idea that only an "irresponsible twit" would become sick or injured is laughable."
It's laughable because it's a straw man you made up.
To say that people will be forced to subsidize irresponsible twits is clearly not the same thing as claiming that everyone who could ever benefit is an irresponsible twit.
Nick S at November 10, 2009 5:27 PM
"Can't be bothered to stay healthy? Like health is a choice? Like it's your choice when some drunk mows you down in the street, or you suddenly are diagnosed with cancer or catch pneumonia?"
If some drunk mows you down, then sue the drunk to pay your medical bills. Why should the taxpayer pick up the tab?
Even if you are diagnosed with a serious illness that is not your fault, if you chose not to take out insurance in the past but then want insurance when you need it, your choices are still your fault.
Nick S at November 10, 2009 5:35 PM
The amusing thing about these arguments is just how inconsistent they tend to be.
The nanny statists are typically all in favor of government health campaigns lecturing the public about things like healthy eating, not smoking, etc. Surely these campaigns only make sense if you assume that individuals have some responsibility for their own health and that bad health is sometimes the result of poor choices.
And yet when it comes to government health care, the same folks pretend that the sick are always victims and that there is no danger of moral hazard or being forced to pay for other people's irresponsible choices. Nice contradiction.
So it's quite okay to lecture private citizens about what they do with their own money and lives. But it's not okay to judge people who want others to be forced to pay for their own poor choices.
Patti, I'm sure the irony of this goes straight over the top of your head.
Nick S at November 10, 2009 5:46 PM
Patrick, don't be a douchebag.
There are people in this country who weigh as much as my motorcycle, and they belly up to the trough every night and wonder why they are fat and their organs are failing.
Why the fuck should I be forced to subsidize their behavior?
Because that's what I end up doing with this whole HMO bullshit (which is only one step removed from socialized medicine since government tells them what they have to cover). I don't merely pay based on the risk I present, I pay to cover the fat fucks who need oxygen tanks and buggies and insulin because they can't stop shoving food down that big hole in their face.
And yes, for the bulk of it, health is a choice. Insurance should only cover the catastrophic stuff. It shouldn't be paying for routine checkups and sniffle visits and hang nails and maintenance medicine.
Of course the pro-government people will tell you that the government will force the fatties to get thin. But that's not government's job. We didn't hire the fuckups to be our mommy and our nurse.
brian at November 10, 2009 5:47 PM
Actually Brian, there is not much point arguing with Patrick. He is a master of sophistry and rhetorical nonsense. Like a junior high school debater, he's got a glib bullshit response to everything.
I don't know whether he deliberately posts nonsense to wind people up, or if he's just not terribly bright. For example, his claim that taxes are somehow voluntary and not backed by state force is ridiculous. The fact that revenue authorities can't always monitor every individual or prove every case of tax evasion is no more relevant than the fact that authorities can't always prove any other offense.
Tax evaders can face massive fines or jail terms. But hey, there's no state compulsion. Just a friendly encouragement.
Nick S at November 10, 2009 6:22 PM
As my ancestors would have said: "That's a nice house you got there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
brian at November 10, 2009 7:54 PM
Brian: Patrick, don't be a douchebag.
There are people in this country who weigh as much as my motorcycle, and they belly up to the trough every night and wonder why they are fat and their organs are failing.
Brian, don't be an idiot...unless of course, that means you would cease to exist.
I never said people could be unhealthy by their own choices. Obviously, in the case of smokers and over-feeders, that happens. You, on the other hand, suggested that a it took an "irresponsible twit" to be unhealthy. As if arbitrary illness or injury was the fault of someone unlucky enough to get them.
Nick S., you're no longer worth discussing anything with. You're an asshole, first, last, and every point in between, and that sums up your entire being.
No charge for the in-depth analysis of your superficial character.
Patrick at November 10, 2009 10:27 PM
Brian writes: Why the fuck should I be forced to subsidize their behavior?
Now that Jack S. has been put in his place, I can deal with your arguments. First of all, Brian, you need anger management...as in yesterday. Each and every single one of your posts drips, I mean absolutely bleeds hatred for someone. Usually a hypothetical someone that you don't even know.
Get a handle on it before you end up on CNN as the deranged lunatic who was blowing away passers-by on a street corner.
And you said that irresponsible twits are the one who got sick. Not a single statement acknowledging that sickness or injury could have be just bad luck, a birth defect, etc. Nope, in your mind, every single person who gets sick or hurt is just an irresponsible twit who deserved it. And you're seething in uncontrollable rage for it.
Let's be reasonable, shall we?
Anyway, some would argue that your "donorcycle" makes YOU an "irresponsible twit." I could ask you, why should I subsidize your decision to travel on something that affords so little protection?
But of course, we subsidize each other's risks all the time. Your house catches fire, why should I subsidize your stupidity?
After all, just like injury or illness, anyone who's house catches fire had it happen because they were an irresponsible twit who couldn't be bothered to keep their homes safe. Never in the history of this world has anyone ever had their house catch fire because of arson, lightning, faulty wiring, forest fire, accident, etc. Nope. Irresponsible twits, all of them.
And why should I subsidize your stupidity if you ever need police protection? After all, no one ever has had a crime occur because people are just plain evil. Nope, no such thing as a victim of a crime. Anyone whose ever been robbed, raped, had their property vandalized, assaulted, etc. had it happen just because they were an irresponsible twit who couldn't be bothered to protect themselves or secure their possessions.
Ask your buddy, Jack S., who seems to think that the solution to getting hit by a drunk driver is to sue him for your medical expenses. Because we all know that drunk drivers are just filthy rich with all kinds of money dripping out of every orifice and could easily cover your medical expenses. A saying about blood from a stone comes to mind...
Brian, get yourself to anger management, because you simply aren't safe as you are, and every post of yours shows it. Then afterward, stick a crowbar up your ass and try to dislodge your head.
Patrick at November 11, 2009 12:17 AM
All sorts of things can happen to someone through no fault of their own, but they are nobody else's fault either.
There is no right to take something from another just because you need something, even if the need comes through no fault of your own. Is it terrible that these things happen, sure, but that doesn't give you the right to force someone else to pay for it.
Voluntary charity is the only reasonable solution. It is not a reasonable solution to enslave everyone for the sake of the lame, the halt and the blind.
Each individual has enough problems of his own to take care of, he doesn't need to be burdened with anyone else's problem from birth.
Fareed at November 11, 2009 2:56 AM
Fareed writes: There is no right to take something from another just because you need something, even if the need comes through no fault of your own. Is it terrible that these things happen, sure, but that doesn't give you the right to force someone else to pay for it.
No one is demanding that anyone pay for someone else's healthcare. Like law enforcement, homeland security, the fire department and other community and national services, we recognize that we share the risk of becoming sick or injured, therefore we share the costs. And for the most part, we do this without complaining because we recognize we're not immune to requiring those services. The police help someone recover their possessions when they're robbed. We pay for the police, even if we ourselves were never robbed, because we recognize we're not immune to robbery.
The same logic could be applied to healthcare. I don't care if you don't get sick or injured. You're not immune to having that happen, and your loved ones aren't either.
Universal Healthcare is a recognition of that shared risk.
Patrick at November 11, 2009 5:27 AM
I'm not the one asking you to subsidize my life choices, douchebag.
Yeah, right. I only react this way to ignominious twits such as yourself who find that argument requires that they redefine the words their opponent has "spoken" such that they no longer mean what they say.
Bullshit. If I get cancer, my neighbor doesn't die. If your house starts on fire, it could start your neighbor's house on fire.
This line of argument (shared risk, shared responsibility, etc.) is responsible for the murder of over 120 million people since the beginning of the 20th century.
I'm done attempting to have an adult conversation with you. Your ability to say this with a straight face after everything else that has been said on the topic is an example of your complete detachment from reality.
You might want to consider checking in to an assisted living facility so that you don't starve on account of having forgotten how to eat.
brian at November 11, 2009 5:48 AM
I wrote: Universal Healthcare is a recognition of that shared risk.
Brian writes: Bullshit. If I get cancer, my neighbor doesn't die. If your house starts on fire, it could start your neighbor's house on fire.
I suspect your declaration, "I'm done attempting to have an adult conversation with you," is a strategic withdrawal based on an obvious hole in your argument.
Cancer isn't contagious. But there are other diseases which are. True, your neighbor will not die of cancer just because you get it, but there are other illnesses in the world which you can get, and can spread to others. Shared risk.
Patrick at November 11, 2009 7:04 AM
"No one is demanding that anyone pay for someone else's healthcare. Like law enforcement, homeland security, the fire department and other community and national services, we recognize that we share the risk of becoming sick or injured, therefore we share the costs."
So in one sentence he declares "no one is demanding that anyone pay for someone else's healthcare", and in the very next sentence he explains why we have to pay for other people's healthcare.
He's either not very bright, or he deliberately posts nonsense just to derail threads and wind people up.
Now he's using the threat of contagious illnesses as a justification for government health care. As far as silly and redundant arguments go, this one takes the cake. Contagious illnesses are indeed a public responsibility, but they can be dealt with through measures like quarantine, vaccinations and the like. There is no need for the government to then assume responsibility for other areas of healthcare. To use contagious illnesses as a justification for a government takeover of health care is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
Nick S at November 11, 2009 2:06 PM
"I suspect your declaration, "I'm done attempting to have an adult conversation with you," is a strategic withdrawal based on an obvious hole in your argument."
What delightfully fatuous projection!
Whenever Pattie cannot respond to someone's points he simply dismisses them as not worth dealing with, and acts as though he's taking the high road. And yet when someone else gets tired of dealing with his obtuse debating points, that is seen as automatic evidence they are giving up because they cannot answer his points.
"Now that Jack S. has been put in his place, I can deal with your arguments."
I hate to break the news to you Pattie, my dear boy. But you don't put people in their place through mindless abuse like calling someone an asshole. All you achieve by that is letting others know you are an ignorant fuck, and alerting security to throw you out on the street with the rest of the guttersnipes.
I at least had the class and wit to offer you a reasoned assessment of why your character and contributions are not productive here. Go and cool off, and give your overblown ego a rest.
Nick S at November 11, 2009 3:24 PM
The whole argument that because we socialize certain risks via police, emergency services, defense, etc. we should do the same with health care doesn't stack up.
While society may socialize a certain amount of risk, there is a limit to how much risk you can socialize before the costs place an unsustainable burden on society. So it's nonsense to say 'oh, we are already subsidizing a few risks. So let's just socialize a whole lot more'. Straw, meet broken camel's back.
Secondly, it is silly to lump health care in with things like police or emergency services. It is inherently easier for most people to provide for their health than it is for everyone to provide their own security. With the exception of emergency treatment, health care is not inherently an essential public service.
Nick S at November 11, 2009 4:41 PM
Leave a comment