Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2013, 03:32 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
"I would accept any policy you proposed that did not (a) use threats of force to coerce people into doing things against their will"

"things against their will" You mean like, turn the volume of your music down? If I ask you to turn the volume of your music down: That might be against your will! But your music might be keeping the entire neighborhood awake. So, we might have to weigh the needs of the neighborhood against your will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 12:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Saying he disagrees as to what the content of the law is is not the same as defending it.

Same as always, blanket statements with no specifics so that it's impossible to address.

I learn from the master.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Please copy/paste what SPECIFICALLY I said about the content of the law that was not 100% accurate? Considering how much I've spent on lawyers over the past 10 years trying to get my freedom to live in Switzerland, and how many times I've read the law forwards and backwards, I know this law pretty well, and I don't recall Chas ever pointing out any time where I was wrong about the content of the law. If so, I will gladly thank Chas for the new information.

Bro. Learn to read. That's not the point.

Y'know the part where I explicitly stated that the actual content was irrelevant to the point being made? 'Cause, yeah. That. That's not the point.

Let's try this again:
You say a law saying A is bad.
Someone says A is a misreading of B.
You accuse them of defending A.

Having this pointed out to you, your response is "but my reading of A totally is correct".

You... don't seem to realize that that's still not the point.

Disagreement as to what the provisions of a law mean does not constitute defending one's interpretation of those provisions.

Repeatedly insisting it does is not sane.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 12:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Society is by definition coercive. Are there any laws lacking consequences for breaking them? I'm not aware of any.

Strawman.

Except no, because I'm not representing that as someone else's view.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm not saying there should be no consequences for breaking the law. I'm arguing that the laws should be written to protect people from coercion not subject them to it. Take a law that says you cannot rape someone in the street. Am I suggesting there should be no consequences for breaking that law? Hardly! I'm saying this is a good law because it does not subject anyone to coercion (other than telling them not to coerce others), so it's defending us from coercion.

Well, let's put our thinking caps on.

How does the existence of such a law stop people from raping on the street?

It's a real stumper, so take your time answering.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Further, I've already said that I know it's impossible to get people agree to not pass laws that initiate coercion (or force). It's an innate part of human nature, and there's never been more than a few % of the population that opposes this. So I know we'll never get a majority. Therefore, all I'm asking for is that when you DO pass laws that initiate coercion (ie positive laws), do not put up barriers to prevent people from leaving if they find the law too much. That's the one and only action item I'm asking for. Namely, if you're threatening someone with violence for not doing something against their will, let me leave if I find it too much. That's all we libertarians want. I don't see why this is considered such an extreme position.

Sure. That's not what you just said.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  No. Here's what makes me feel I'm right: I first explained to you that I would accept any policy you proposed that did not (a) use threats of force to coerce people into doing things against their will, and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws.

IF you had responded that this was utopian and explained WHY you feel it is necessary to have coercive laws at the national level, THEN we could have had a productive debate. We could have picked an issue we disagreed on, and debated if it really was necessary to have a national coercive law, or if I had viable non-coercive alternatives.

That, and explicit moral judgement on anyone who disagreed.

It seems as though you have at least acknowledged other positions are possible. So that's progress.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But this wasn't your position. Rather, you refused to concede that the only difference between us was coercion vs. free will at the national level.

Uh huh. Citation needed.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, I repeatedly asked you to name one issue you thought we might disagree on which did NOT boil down to you wanting a national law that coerced people into doing things against their will. An honest response would be to either say (a) Here's an example: X, or (b) I can't think of any example, so I guess this really is the fundamental issue we're debating after all, let's pick a policy item and debate whose approach is better.

We've been over this. At length.

My opinion is that coercive pressure to do something and coercive pressure not to do something are equivalent insofar as both are overriding individual free will. This is necessarily contained within any social agreement.

This is where you disagree. Which is all well and good.

Are you finally acknowledging that the foundations of human moral reasoning have innate statistical variation?

Because that's what I've been trying to get you to answer. Disagreement is one thing. Judgemental condemnation of any disagreement is another. And not particularly charming, as it happens.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Instead, you kept attacking me, and I kept asking the question over and over again, and you kept dodging it. Yes, after several failed attempts to get an answer out of you I resorted to taunts, like saying 'Name one difference that doesn't resort to you being a club-wielding neanderthal.' But the only reason it got that far is because you were unable to find one disagreement that didn't boil down to this issue, yet at the same time you refused to acknowledge that this was the issue we were disagreeing on.

See above.

So far as I can tell, honest discussion is something you're simply not capable of. The attempt is futile. Your mischaracterisation of others is so knee-jerk you don't realize you're doing it.

For every claim P you make, you interpret the slightest hint of disagreement as wholehearted commitment to anti-P. It is very tiresome.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, I'll try one more time, a basic yes/no questions. Let's see if you answer them or run:

I reserve the right not to answer stupid questions.

Crowing on as though my not answering were somehow meaningful is, er, exactly what I accused you of doing, and exactly what you literally just denied doing. So there's that.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Can you name one policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting a law at the national level that coerces people into doing things against their will? YES OR NO. If Yes, what is the policy, and let's debate it.

Let us leave aside all other concerns for a moment. Let us consider this interaction in a vacuum, independent of context and content.

You ask a question.
I decline to answer, and explain why.
Do you really think asking the same question again is likely to have a different outcome? Just curious.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
07-11-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 03:32 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  "I would accept any policy you proposed that did not (a) use threats of force to coerce people into doing things against their will"

"things against their will" You mean like, turn the volume of your music down? If I ask you to turn the volume of your music down: That might be against your will! But your music might be keeping the entire neighborhood awake. So, we might have to weigh the needs of the neighborhood against your will.

When you deliberately misquote someone by cropping out the key piece of their statement, you don't get any points. You cropped off the last half of the sentence: "and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws."

So, YES, I _DO_ oppose a national law on noise. I would oppose it if old politicians in Washington DC who think the neighborhood should be silent after 8pm, instead of passing a local ordinance, insist that they're going to have a national noise ordinance, which saves the people of NYC from themselves, forcing to be silent after 8pm. YES, I oppose that. If you don't crop off the key points in my statement, you'll see my statement is quite reasonable.

Personally, as a libertarian, I wouldn't pass a noise ordinance because I want to be as tolerant and accommodating with others as possible. So if my neighbors make noise in the middle of the night, I'll just put in earplugs, but wouldn't ever call the police or try to get a law passed. However, that's just me, I admit it's a minority position, and that's not what I'm asking for. I'm simply asking that you don't do it at the national level, and accept that what YOU, say a Californian, think is the right rule, to a New Yorker, it may be wrong. And you're both entitled to your opinion. So pass your own local laws and stop trying to force people across the nation to change since it's not even affecting you anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 05:15 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 05:19 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(03-11-2013 08:06 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Insurance has been around for hundreds of years, most people ultimately buy insurance at one point in their lives, and the definition is so simple it can be summed in 2 short sentences:

From wikipedia: Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.

Car insurance (comp & coll) covers your car in the event of an accident or natural disaster, because those are RISKS, and we pay a premium (insurance) to manage that risk. Car insurance does NOT cover oil changes, tires and brakes. There is NO RISK with those expense. You KNOW in advance that you're going to incur them. Sure, companies will sell plans that cover them. But they are NOT insurance plans. They are maintenance plans.

Health insurance is no different. Like all insurance, it is a way to manage risk--the risk that maybe you'll be unfortunate and get cancer or get hit by a bus and be faced with major bills. When companies like Blue Cross cover planned, predictable expenses like routine checkups, it is NOT insurance! There is no risk, and the management of risk IS the very definition of insurance. Rather it is a maintenance plan, just like the car maintenance plan that covers oil changes, tires and brakes.

So when you listen to people like Obama and many on this forum say that Obamacare mandates everyone buy "health insurance", you have to ask yourself, "Since they don't even know what health insurance is, can we REALLY rely on their opinion of it?" Obamcare makes it illegal to get health insurance, and it mandates everyone buy a health maintenance plan instead.

Next ask financial advisers if maintenance plans are a good value. Anybody who understands the system will say "No, they're a rip off for suckers. It's stupid to pay a middle-man a premium to cover what is a predictable expense". Heck, Best Buy trains their sales people to always offer "maintenance plans" and provides very generous commissions on them, and they can get in trouble if they don't sell any. Why? Because it's pure profit. It's a sucker plan, where a fool and is his money are soon parted. In another post I provided a spreadsheet proving that health maintenance plans are just as much a rip off and will cost the average man at least $1 million over the course of his life.

Why is this concept so complicated for the self-proclaimed liberals to understand? Why can't get their heads around the difference between health insurance (which has value as it's a service to manage risk) vs. health maintenance plans (where you're paying a middle-man a premium to cover predictable expenses)?

Agreed. I've been saying this for years. Its not health insurance. However, simply treating it truly like insurance does not address the issue. You are forgetting the economics behind healthcare.

It does not follow a normal supply vs demand model. In the situation you are describing, simply paying out of pocket for your health maintenance should bring the price of healthcare down due to the supply and demand equilibrium. You are saying, that if someone can't afford the medication, then the demand will go down, and the price will also have to go down to a more sustainable level. Another example of what you are saying is that if a doctor charges $900 an hour, the free market will result in competition, and the doctor's price will go down in conjunction with the market.

Except you have forgotten one very simple factor of demand. The Elasticity of that Demand. Your Life has a very inelastic demand. So if you need a life saving surgery, you will pay whatever price you have to in order to do that. Medication is $2,000 a month? You'll go broke before you die. Further, no two doctors are exactly the same…so a person, if they perceive the $900/h doctor to be the best doctor, will pay his price even if there is a cheaper, $150/h doctor.

Think of the price of gas. Our current dependence on our cars for gas makes the price relatively (but not completely) inelastic. Which means, that as the price of gas rises, you will continue to buy it because you *have* to drive your car. You might cut back some, but ultimately, you will continue to buy gas at extremely high prices.

So…in order to fix the healthcare crisis, we need the following regulations and deregulations in place to force the price down.

1) Special healthcare courts to deal with malpractice (not just tort reform). A special healthcare court can understand what is reasonable care. We need to stop punishing doctors for failing to be infallible and all knowing.
2) deregulation of the FDA. Not complete…but dialed back a bit. There is no free lunch, drugs have side effects, including death. No one said there were no risks in life.
3) forced release of drugs to manufacture generic
4) HIPPA Regulations - taken down to the studs
5) Medicare & Medicaid - regulations for doctors to comply must be taken down to the studs.
6) State sponsored or federally sponsored medical school.

Bottom line, it can't be expensive for a person to become a doctor, nor can it be too expensive for a person to be in private practice. It can't be expensive for phama companies to manufacture drugs, and people don't get millions for having bad side effects (within reasonable situations). Then and only then, will you see even the smallest movement of medical care going back down to a sustainable level.

Part of the problem is how the US views legal risk now. somehow, Americans got it into their head that it is someone else's responsibility to save them from themselves. Am I saying you shouldn't ever sue? Hell no! If a doctor cuts off my arm when I went in there for a appendectomy, I'm gonna be compensated because I can't work anymore. But getting millions because you had a PE and it wasn't a listed possible side effect? Nope. If you knew death was possible, a PE certainly was too.

They forgot the Economist's motto: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

People want everything. But they don't want to pay for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 05:31 PM
Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Insurance is a scam whether it is government or private.

The concept is, you pay x people money and they keep the money regardless of whether or not you use insurance. If you pay car insurance and don't have a wreck in a certain amount of years shouldn't you receive your money back?

Health insurance is a scam for similar reasons. And health is not the purpose of health insurance. Corporations push bullshittin foods that they know are bad for your health and know that they are addicting, as long as this happens then any talk of "health" insurance is a scam.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 05:32 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Please copy/paste what SPECIFICALLY I said about the content of the law that was not 100% accurate?

Disagreement as to what the provisions of a law mean does not constitute defending one's interpretation of those provisions.

Of course what you said is true. But it's missing the context. If you read my initial post, the tone was neutral, there were no insults, no name calling, etc. It degraded only after Chas said my post was "libertarian garbage", at which point I responded in kind. Since you couldn't come up with anything specific I said that was not 100% accurate., I'll assume you concede my posts were, then, factually accurate, and not just "garbage". In which case, why was I being continuously attacked for it, if what I said was true? I still feel Chas's response constitutes defending the law.

And it's especially annoying because the only change I was asking for, which Chas kept fighting me on, is that I be permitted to do what Chas himself did. I found it incredible that Chas, a Canadian expat who took advantage of Canada's policy of "you're free to leave, no strings attached, no barriers, no obligations", is so angry that I want the same freedom he has!

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  My opinion is that coercive pressure to do something and coercive pressure not to do something are equivalent insofar as both are overriding individual free will. This is necessarily contained within any social agreement.

Your ignoring the fact that when I've been separating laws into 2 sides (just vs. unjust) I've been separating them based on reciprocal laws vs. non-reciprocal. Reciprocity is the foundation of any moral argument. I believe nearly all moral philosophers agree reciprocal laws are NOT morally equivalent to laws which are not.

A law which says "You will be threatened with physical force ONLY if you threaten me with physical force", is reciprocal. It is NOT morally equivalent to a law that says "do what I tell you to or else you'll get thrown in jail", which is not.

Yes, the police are authorized to use force. I'm not debating that. What I am debating is if that force should ONLY be used in kind to stop force (ie reciprocal, defensive), or if the police should initiate force against people who themselves are not initiating force against anyone else (ie not reciprocal, offensive).

Laws which prohibit the initiation of force against others (rape, murder, etc.) are morally justified because they only affect you if you are already breaking them (initiating force against others). It's reciprocal and moral because once you initiate force against others, you have no moral ground to say that force should not be initiated against you. If I see a girl on the street and beat her with a stick and rape her, how can I possibly claim that she is not entitled to hire (such as through taxes) police who will come to her defense?

This is very different than a law that says if you smoke pot the police will come down on you with force. That is not reciprocal, because what's happening to you is NOT what you yourself are doing to others. Rather it's based on someone else's subjective opinion of how you should live your life. Some chain-smoking nicotine-addicted politician is arbitrarily deciding that his vice is ok, and yours is not, and subjects you to violence when in fact you were peacefully minding your own business and not subjecting others to violence.

So, answer this, please:

Do you believe that reciprocal laws which state physical force will ONLY be used against you if you are using physical force against others are the moral equivalent to laws which subject you to physical force even if you're just peacefully sitting in your home merely doing something that some politicians or voters think you ought not to be doing?


(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, let's put our thinking caps on.

How does the existence of such a law stop people from raping on the street?

It's a real stumper, so take your time answering.

Yes, put our thinking caps on.... The law stops people from raping on the street because the police will arrest if you don't. Have I ever objected to that? No, because it's defensive. The police are ONLY using force defensively to stop someone else from initiating force.

Libertarians are opposed to the use of force, but accept that only force can stop force. This is morally reasonable because as long as you're not using force, you won't be subjected to it.

(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Can you name one policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting a law at the national level that coerces people into doing things against their will? YES OR NO. If Yes, what is the policy, and let's debate it.

Let us leave aside all other concerns for a moment. Let us consider this interaction in a vacuum, independent of context and content.

You ask a question.
I decline to answer, and explain why.
Do you really think asking the same question again is likely to have a different outcome? Just curious.

Step 1 in any debate is for both sides to agree on the issue they're debating! If one is arguing about the merits of patents, and the other is arguing is global warming, then it's not a debate. It's just two people speaking over each other.

I keep asking because I hope that someday you'll get tired of being stuck at the starting line, and will acknowledge WHAT it is that we're debating so that we can actually get started.

I've said a million times, there's only one core issue that I feel strongly enough about to debate, and that is if peaceful, non-threatening solutions and reciprocal laws are a viable alternative to the traditional system where laws threaten people with violence if they don't do something against their will.

If you're not interested in debating that topic, or don't have an opinion on it, then you have no justification for bashing classic liberals (libertarians) since that is the one and only issue we're arguing for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 06:03 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are forgetting the economics behind healthcare. It does not follow a normal supply vs demand model.... You are saying, that if someone can't afford the medication, then the demand will go down, and the price will also have to go down to a more sustainable level.

There's more to it than that. Say Viagra costs $1,000 per pill. Pfizer may only sell 1,000 pills, and make $1m in revenue. But if it costs $10 per pill, they may sell a billion pills and make $10 billion. It's in their interest to lower their prices, because it's in their interest to get the most customers. In a normal free market system, the interests of the seller and buyer are aligned. Both want what the other has, and both want the transaction to go through, so they need to agree on a win-win arrangement, or else the other side will walk. This is different than when the transaction is initiated with force (ie you'll go to jail if you don't pay for it) because then you're forced to pay for it even if you think it's a losing proposition and you're getting ripped off. I think the system works best when every transaction is a win-win, and that only happens if you take force out of the equation.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Your Life has a very inelastic demand. So if you need a life saving surgery, you will pay whatever price you have to in order to do that. Medication is $2,000 a month? You'll go broke before you die.

If my medication cost $2,000/month and it would make me go broke, what I'd do is move to San Diego so I could walk across the border every month and buy it for $200. This WOULD put pressure on the drug companies. As far as the doctor, I also believe that's not true.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Further, no two doctors are exactly the same…so a person, if they perceive the $900/h doctor to be the best doctor, will pay his price even if there is a cheaper, $150/h doctor.

I totally disagree. That's based on a very selfish perspective. Using your ratios. If I had $1 million saved up, and got sick and had to choose between a doctor that charged $900k and had a 90% success rate vs. one who charged $150k and had an 80% success rate, I would choose the latter because I'd want my kids to be able to college, buy a house, etc., and not spend their inheritance to buy a 10% higher success rate. Besides, nobody is able to evaluate all the millions of doctors in the world and determine which is best. We all take a leap of faith, and, were it a free market, the doctors would have to compete vigorously for our business.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Think of the price of gas. Our current dependence on our cars for gas makes the price relatively (but not completely) inelastic. Which means, that as the price of gas rises, you will continue to buy it because you *have* to drive your car. You might cut back some, but ultimately, you will continue to buy gas at extremely high prices.

Completely wrong. Look at European countries. Many slap 400% taxes on gas, driving the cost through the roof. And guess what? Most people take public transport. They did NOT continue buying gas at extremely high prices.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  1) Special healthcare courts to deal with malpractice (not just tort reform). A special healthcare court can understand what is reasonable care. We need to stop punishing doctors for failing to be infallible and all knowing.

Agreed.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  2) deregulation of the FDA. Not complete…but dialed back a bit. There is no free lunch, drugs have side effects, including death. No one said there were no risks in life.

The studies I've read show the FDA causes more deaths by delaying good drugs than they save by preventing bad ones, so I'd can it all together. But you're off to a good start.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  3) forced release of drugs to manufacture generic

Agreed. See my post on why patents should go away.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  4) HIPPA Regulations - taken down to the studs
5) Medicare & Medicaid - regulations for doctors to comply must be taken down to the studs.

Agreed.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  6) State sponsored or federally sponsored medical school.

Totally disagree here. Who pays for a state sponsored medical school? The state? Not really. The state doesn't have any money except what it takes from the people. So the people end up paying either way, it's just that if it's state sponsored they're FORCED to pay against their will. And, IMO, that's just going to drive the cost of education up higher because if taxpayers are FORCED to send money to the universities, then the universities have no competitive pressure to lower prices and offer the best education at the best price. They get your money regardless.

Look at the ranking of US universities. Every single one of the top universities is private; generally started by charitable donations. The state run universities never make it to the top. The cost of university education has skyrocketed, but this has a lot to do with the government throwing out tons of money for schools (student loans, pell grants, etc.). I would go the other way and get the government out of it completely and let the bad, overpriced universities die and get taken over by young, fresh entrepreneurs, and create healthy competition.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  somehow, Americans got it into their head that it is someone else's responsibility to save them from themselves.

Agreed 1 million %.

(07-11-2013 05:15 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  They forgot the Economist's motto: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

People want everything. But they don't want to pay for it.

Absolutely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(03-11-2013 09:17 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 09:13 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Because we are not dicks like insurance company executives who would be perfectly happy to let sick people die if it means a bigger bottom line for the company?

Just a guess.

I agree with this reason. Smile

You don't die from not having regular maintenance and check ups on your car.
Ask any doctor though, regular check ups and preventive care can save your life in the long run.

Although I don't really care for the ACA. I am all for universal healthcare.

Your analogy isn't entirely accurate. You don't die if you fail to have reg maintanence on your car - but your car does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 07:28 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
I'm on my mobile so I can't quote that well but I completely disagree with you. What is your familarity with economics?

Viagra is not a life savings medication. That demand is not inelastic. I was talking about life saving medication. To be fair - let's compare apples to apples. Also - I'm not too sure why force is applied in this scenario? You aren't forced to buy Viagra...or even life saving medication. Applying force dynamics to this economic proposition is completely nonsensical.

Also - comparing apples to apples - I did not include any success rate parameters in the assumption. Assuming the 90% vs 80% is a no brainer. But what about 90 vs 10? That changes what you will do.

Public Transportation? You do realize that unless you live in a major metropolitan area, there is no real public transportation to speak of? I said the demand for gas was mostly inelastic - not completely. While you will drive less, you will still drive.

You are paying for healthcare no matter which way you look at it. Pay for Medicare? Medicaid? Tax dollars. So what's the difference if you pay more up front temporarily to save more on the back end. The rising healthcare costs are the tax payers and private insurance ultimate problem. The more people that fail to pay their maintenance costs, the more the hospital charges to cover the difference. The more premium you pay goes up. You pay either way, my friend.


The average doctor out of medical school, if paying for it himself or herself, owes more than $214,000 out of med school if private, 120,000 if a state school. They can't charge you 150/h, pay for everyday living expenses, business costs and pay student loans. The math doesn't work.

Also - canning the FDA isn't wise. How do you know what's in that white oblong pill? You need to have regulations in place to ensue you aren't taking nothing more than sugar pills and arsenic.

So like I said - you want low cost health care - but you don't want to pay for it!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 07:38 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 07:51 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Comparing what happens to gas prices in the US is an unfair and inaccurate comparison to the Europe. The majority of the US is populated through RURAL areas. The term "small town America" isn't just a catchy phrase. No matter the cost of gas, farmers will still need it to plow their fields and harvest their crops. The US is comprised more of small towns than of large metropolitan cities. Where I live, there is a bus, subway or your feet to take you anywhere you want to go. Where I grew up - the closest convenience store was 5 miles away. You drive to get wherever you were going. There are no buses, no subways, nothing within reasonable walking distance. Not when your job was 15 miles away. no other way to get around.

You also completely disregard the trickle down effect for this scenario. The cost of public transportation also rises when gas prices rise as well, due to: 1) the added strain of transporting more people taking public transportation; and 2) the added cost of gas to transport said people

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: