Why do you think forced healthcare is immoral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flyingfish
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
runningdude said:
I think she saying she believes the law isn’t perfect. No piece of legislation is. However in her particular case, it will help pay for the chronic care she needs, rather than leave suffering through the pains of her condition, and the pains of bankruptcy paying for it.

Hearing some of the thing on this thread, I concede that the current legislation will need refinement in the coming years and decades. But I fundamentally believe that doing nothing will hurt the country and millions of Americans without coverage more than whatever direct or indirect consequences of this newly passed legislation might be.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of WIIFM going around (What’s In It For Me)
 
runningdude said:
I think she saying she believes the law isn’t perfect. No piece of legislation is. However in her particular case, it will help pay for the chronic care she needs, rather than leave suffering through the pains of her condition, and the pains of bankruptcy paying for it.

Hearing some of the thing on this thread, I concede that the current legislation will need refinement in the coming years and decades. But I fundamentally believe that doing nothing will hurt the country and millions of Americans without coverage more than whatever direct or indirect consequences of this newly passed legislation might be.
Click to expand...
d

Well, to put it mildly in your archer’s worldview; Pathia would benefit from a health care bill that steals from the productive using government coercion and gives to the leeches who do not pull their own weight. Pathia should feel ashamed for (perhaps indirectly) benefiting from a bill that relies on immoral theft from hard working virtuous people. Pathia should not rely on the state’s largess, which is the result of its violation of individual liberty to pay for redistributive transfer payments, and rely on charity.

It is a simple, disgusting perspective devoid of nuances toescribe most government programs as “theft” while seeing its beneficiaries as “unproductive leeches”. The tendency to label those who benefit from government programs as “leeches” precludes one from developing feelings of empathy.

Edit:
I invite royal archer (and other people who agree with him) to show how their worldview differ from the above summary, and that I posted an inaccurate, unfair caricature.
 
royal_archer said:
There is a lot of WIIFM going around (What’s In It For Me)
Click to expand...
When you need two vicodin to get out of bed and get down the hill onto the bus, there’s not much else your mind can comprehend other than ways for it to be different and latch onto it as soon as it appears.
 
pathia said:
When you need two vicodin to get out of bed and get down the hill onto the bus, there’s not much else your mind can comprehend other than ways for it to be different and latch onto it as soon as it appears.
Click to expand...
If that is the case then you should be getting on the case of all the deadbeats who are sucking up the vast charity in this country.
 
royal_archer said:
If that is the case then you should be getting on the case of all the deadbeats who are sucking up the vast charity in this country.
Click to expand...
I have been down in the dumps, on the streets, in the shelters both in need and as a volunteer. I haven’t met as many ‘deadbeats’ to indicate there are as many as you think exist.
 
pathia said:
I have been down in the dumps, on the streets, in the shelters both in need and as a volunteer. I haven’t met as many ‘deadbeats’ to indicate there are as many as you think exist.
Click to expand...
And I tried hiring some entry level workers and had a hard time getting people to take the job, they just wanted me to sign that they attended an interview.

I also know a lot of people who are just scraping by who do not need the extra burden put on them by this legislation.
 
royal_archer said:
No one is forcing you to go to a for profit isurance company. you can always go to a not for profit provider or self insure. wait never mind Obama took that right away from us.
Click to expand...
It is impossible for any man to take a right away from another man… that’s the whole purpose of rights. They are inalienable!!!

Nobody took away your right to own a gun… you gave it up when you didn’t read the paperwork and consented to turning your right to own a gun into a privilege, administered by your “leaders”.

Nobody took away your common law right to travel in a car… you gave it up when you didn’t read the paperwork and consented to turning that right into a privilege, administered by your “leaders”.

Now would be the time to read Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent to realize that the government has tricked you into believing you must do these things.

Our government understands that you can’t take away a man’s right to life… but you sure can keep him alive in debt. That’s just what people like you want. You want everybody to be in so much debt, that the Federal Reserve owns every bit of property that our Fathers fought for.

You’ll get what you want, alright.
royal_archer said:
By the way with cash for clunkers, the government wasted over half of the money.

Universal health insurance is not universal, it is simply a way to give low quality insurance to all while only making a discriminated against group pick up the bill for everyone. in other words forced servitude.
Click to expand...
I never said that Obamacare was universal, did I? I said that we should have universal health insurance… because THAT would be constitutional.

Cash for Clunkers is unconstitutional, because it’s NOT general welfare, which is permitted by the Constitution.

But, basically, I’m for Obamacare, only because it’s the only way to reach universal health insurance. If Obama outlawed the criminal health insurance companies right away… he would be shot immediately.
royal_archer said:
I guess you have never worked with the government if you think they won’t send people in to second guess doctors. they will come in after the fact and deny payments to doctors after the fact but will not make a ruling before hand. Therefore they doctor could never tell a patient the government won’t pay for a procedure, instead the doctor will have to take all of the risk.
Click to expand...
You’re a loon.

You really think that a doctor is going to second guess whether a man is having a heart attack or not? … and ask for the government to come intervene??

You really think that a doctor is going to second guess a ruptured appendix? … and ask for the government to come intervene??

What is it that you think proponents of universal health insurance are really trying to accomplish?? Mandated cosmetic surgery??!?!??
markbrumbaugh said:
If you actually think that 100% of the money that goes into the government comes back, then there isn’t anything I can say that will change your mind. And if you think insurance is expensive now, under your plan nothing would be denied, everything would be OK’d and I can’t even imagine what the cost would be then.
Click to expand...
Well… I don’t know about NOTHING being denied, but it the government wouldn’t be dying anything. That would have to rest on the hospital or doctor performing the operation. Say, abortion or cosmetic surgery… these are obviously things that you don’t have a right to. But medicine for asthmatics, diabetics… emergency care for someone who needs an appendectomy, who has a heart attack, who catches strep throat and needs antibiotics, etcetera. These are people who deserve such general health that either the states or the federalies could, most definitely, provide without having to advertise, pay people to deny people with pre-existing conditions [including paying customers].

Proponents of leaving health insurance the way it is ALWAYS scream, “But we have NO CHOICE!!” I have never met someone who had a choice in being born with asthma or diabetes. I have never met someone who had a choice in the doctor that they see after their appendix is about to rupture, or their heart has stopped…

There is no choice in these matters.
markbrumbaugh said:
Please tell me where this 70% comes from by the way.
Click to expand...
It comes from competing corporations advertising, paying for employees to deny coverage from people who are willing to pay, or even have been paying. It comes from these corporations needing to make a profit so that their stocks will continue to rise. It comes from health insurance senior management each making MILLIONS of dollars per person.

The statistic was that, ON AVERAGE, each health insurance company loses anywhere from 25-30% of the funds they are handed… which doesn’t sound unreasonable to me, considering that they have to pay the power bills, phone lines, [massive] salaries, advertising, public relations, marketing in general, etcetera, AND STILL TURN A PROFIT!! Supposedly Michigan only loses about 10% of their funds, BECAUSE the government has already intervened in that state.
 
grndslm said:
It is impossible for any man to take a right away from another man… that’s the whole purpose of rights. They are inalienable!!!
Click to expand...
In this case you are right, Obama can not take away a right, he can simply send in armed tax agents if you attempt to exercise that right.
grndslm said:
But, basically, I’m for Obamacare, only because it’s the only way to reach universal health insurance.
Click to expand...
This is why many oppose the health care destruction act. we know it is only the first step to a stalinist or Hitler vision.
grndslm said:
You’re a loon.

You really think that a doctor is going to second guess whether a man is having a heart attack or not? … and ask for the government to come intervene??

You really think that a doctor is going to second guess a ruptured appendix? … and ask for the government to come intervene??

What is it that you think proponents of universal health insurance are really trying to accomplish?? Mandated cosmetic surgery??!?!??
Click to expand...
Juvinile insults do not support your arguement.

Doctors will think twice about ordering more tests, or choosing the safer procedure over the cheeper procedure.
grndslm said:
Well… I don’t know about NOTHING being denied, but it the government wouldn’t be dying anything. That would have to rest on the hospital or doctor performing the operation. Say, abortion or cosmetic surgery… these are obviously things that you don’t have a right to. But medicine for asthmatics, diabetics… emergency care for someone who needs an appendectomy, who has a heart attack, who catches strep throat and needs antibiotics, etcetera. These are people who deserve such general health that either the states or the federalies could, most definitely, provide without having to advertise, pay people to deny people with pre-existing conditions [including paying customers].
Click to expand...
You talk as though you have never worked on a government contract. One of the main reason costs for the government are so high is because they spend so much time auditing and nit picking every expense and force the contractor to keep extensive amounts of paperwork to avoid charges being denied.
grndslm said:
Proponents of leaving health insurance the way it is ALWAYS scream, “But we have NO CHOICE!!” I have never met someone who had a choice in being born with asthma or diabetes. I have never met someone who had a choice in the doctor that they see after their appendix is about to rupture, or their heart has stopped…

There is no choice in these matters.
Click to expand...
You have the choice to get a job and pay your own way.
grndslm said:
It comes from competing corporations advertising, paying for employees to deny coverage from people who are willing to pay, or even have been paying. It comes from these corporations needing to make a profit so that their stocks will continue to rise. It comes from health insurance senior management each making MILLIONS of dollars per person.

The statistic was that, ON AVERAGE, each health insurance company loses anywhere from 25-30% of the funds they are handed… which doesn’t sound unreasonable to me, considering that they have to pay the power bills, phone lines, [massive] salaries, advertising, public relations, marketing in general, etcetera, AND STILL TURN A PROFIT!! Supposedly Michigan only loses about 10% of their funds, BECAUSE the government has already intervened in that state.
Click to expand...
Once again as demonstrated by cash for clunkers, the government is far more innefficient.
 
grndslm said:
It comes from competing corporations advertising, paying for employees to deny coverage from people who are willing to pay, or even have been paying. It comes from these corporations needing to make a profit so that their stocks will continue to rise. It comes from health insurance senior management each making MILLIONS of dollars per person.

The statistic was that, ON AVERAGE, each health insurance company loses anywhere from 25-30% of the funds they are handed… which doesn’t sound unreasonable to me, considering that they have to pay the power bills, phone lines, [massive] salaries, advertising, public relations, marketing in general, etcetera, AND STILL TURN A PROFIT!! Supposedly Michigan only loses about 10% of their funds, BECAUSE the government has already intervened in that state.
Click to expand...
I didn’t ask yhou explain how you think 70 percent is right, I asked where you got the statistic from. Aetna for example has a payout ratio of 85%
 
royal_archer said:
In this case you are right, Obama can not take away a right, he can simply send in armed tax agents if you attempt to exercise that right.
Click to expand...
No… first the tax agency would need to send you a Notice. You just use the Uniform Commercial Code to your advantage by replying to their Notice’s 30-day grace period with your own Notice & 30-day grace period. Ask them the right questions, then they won’t be able to answer them… and they automatically fall into a state of dishonor. You win. As long as you always open up a line of communication with them ASAP, you will win. If you do not follow that simple rule… then yea, you go into a state of dishonor first, and they win thru your silent acquiescence.
royal_archer said:
This is why many oppose the health care destruction act. we know it is only the first step to a stalinist or Hitler vision.
Click to expand...
BLAH BLAH BLAH. Your mind is too small.
royal_archer said:
Juvinile insults do not support your arguement.
Click to expand...
Neither does your incompetence of the issue at hand. Obamacare is a fair name for what you’re referring to. “Stalinist or Hitler[esque]” is ridiculous when you actually understand how conservative the bill really is. There’s not a whole lot of socialism in it at all, really. The fact that you don’t list out the problems with our current system proves that you have no real intent on solving the problem.

I could list out AT LEAST a dozen serious problems with the way health care funds are handled in the industry. Step 1 is understanding how much of our health care system is already funded by the government. Step 2 is understanding how much our government spends on “defense”.
royal_archer said:
Doctors will think twice about ordering more tests, or choosing the safer procedure over the cheeper procedure.
Click to expand...
If a doctor thinks that he needs to run more tests, don’t you thin that he should run them??

I got into an accident where I “possibly” needed a CT scan. My brain was functioning just fine, feeling totally normal, other than needing some stitches… but he URGED me to get the CT scan. I inform him that I didn’t have insurance at the time, and that if he’s so certain I need it… if he’ll pay for it if he’s wrong. Of course, he said he couldn’t do such a thing.

Isn’t it a shame when we have to consider forgoing preventative care??

What if I’d said no and then racked up a much larger bill after realizing I did have some more serious head trauma??

Or what about the time that I needed that appendectomy… and there wasn’t even a surgeon on hand!!! The doctor URGED me to take an ambulance ride, because my appendix was ABOUT to rupture. I said, “It’s no problem… I don’t even feel bad.” He said, “YOU REALLY SHOULD!! IT COULD RUPTURE, AND YOU WILL NEED THE PARAMEDIC THERE!!!”

I did it, because you don’t really have a choice with such a great salesman. Luckily, I had insurance that time to pay for the $8,000 ambulance ride to the next hospital 10 miles over. Ridiculous that we have to shortchange our own Citizens, and give 10x as much money in the name of “defense”.
royal_archer said:
You have the choice to get a job and pay your own way.
Click to expand...
And what difference does that make if employers aren’t required to provide a group plan for health insurance??!?!??
royal_archer said:
Once again as demonstrated by cash for clunkers, the government is far more innefficient.
Click to expand...
How is Cash for Clunkers related to anything I’m talking about. In what way was Cash for Clunkers either (a) general, or (b) universal?!?
 
markbrumbaugh said:
I didn’t ask yhou explain how you think 70 percent is right, I asked where you got the statistic from. Aetna for example has a payout ratio of 85%
Click to expand...
I’m fairly certain that I heard it in a video where Al Franken was talking to a bunch of his angry constituents that he was able to calm rather quickly, actually.

He pulled the 25-30% statistic as what health insurance companies purge from actually reaching the health care industry. So, the state he said was closer to 10% was most likely his own state, Minnesota.

I cannot find the statistic myself, but I did run across a site with a lot of FAQ that might interest you… pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

Some of my favorites from that page, I do hope you run thru all of them at the link above…
EDIT: Found the Al Franken video…

huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/franken-calms-down-health_n_277687.html
 
40.png
grndslm:
Unfortunately if you do not feel you are responsible for yourself it will be hard for you to understand this.
 
grndslm said:
I hope that’s not the end of the thread. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don’t much comment anymore.

However I did do some research on the annual reports for some health insurance companies. They report a couple of metrics and one is the return of premiums and seems to hover around 85%. Their profit margin is about 3 percent or so of revenue.

Personally I take the Huffington Post with a grain of salt.
 
By the way, I take FoxNews with a grain of salt too in response to another posting. The question asked here is loaded – as if you have an opinion on the answer. It is not open ended.
 
royal_archer said:
Unfortunately if you do not feel you are responsible for yourself it will be hard for you to understand this.
Click to expand...
I do feel responsible for myself.

I am sick right now, and I’d like to go talk to a doctor, because I had strep throat 3 or 4 weeks ago… red bumps on the back of my throat… I took my anti-biotics that I was prescribed by Doctor 1, and they’re all gone. The red bumps are still there!!! I am not wealthy enough, nor does my employer offer health benefits. AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO!!!

My throat just started to get soar when swallowing today, and I’m about to have to break down and put myself in EVEN MORE debt. My responsible decision is to continue to wait it out for another few weeks and hopefully it’ll go away with the help of God. This is a time when being a Christian Scientist might not be such a bad idea… It’s the only way America will ever be able to get ahead!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top