Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2013, 03:42 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
ACA does nothing to correct the rising cost of health care and the plans they are offering are not low enough to force insurance companies to drop their rates to compete.

Surprise, they wanted a single-payer system so they are forcing insurance companies to drop people that no longer have "sufficient" coverage. So where are they forced to go get what they need? Yep healthcare.gov. For a slight increase in premiums and a major increase in deductible, you too can have the coverage you never really needed/wanted.

Just like we had to pass it to find out what was in it, you now have to provide all your personal information so you can be let down about insurance you still can't afford.

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. - Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 02:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "do this or else" is very expeditious and is the obvious solution that the left always chooses, but it usually produces inferior results in the long run.

Still on that, eh?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 02:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "do this or else" is very expeditious and is the obvious solution that the left always chooses, but it usually produces inferior results in the long run.

Still on that, eh?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I challenged you many, many times to point to even one issue that we may disagree on which does NOT boil down to you threatening people with violence to coerce them into doing something against their will. Since you couldn't think of one single exception to this rule, you just ran from the challenge and complained in my 'reputation' that I dared even make the challenge.

I've made this challenge to hundreds of self-proclaimed liberals, and I've yet to find who was ever able to respond to it. I've observed that 100% of the time they react as you did. Bottom line, yes, the left always chooses this approach, and imo the rule stands until you're able to come up with one instance where it doesn't apply.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 05:36 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 02:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Certainly the single-payer healthcare systems of most Western governments do work better than the bastardized system we have in the US. And Obamacare is imo a huge step backward, and we'd have been better off with a single-payer system than this crazy monstrosity, which is just corporate welfare--transfers of wealth from the working man to the insurance companies that fund the politicians campaigns.

With that being said, I believe that a true free-market system (not the non-sense the US had pre-Obamacare) would work even better. And, as a libertarian, I'm opposed to using threats of violence against people. I don't know about the UK, but, for example, I've read that in Canada, in many provinces, if a doctor feels a patient needs something right away, and the patient is able to pay for it himself, it is actually illegal for the doctor to provide that service. Meaning a doctor who, despite warnings and fines, keeps doing it, will eventually be hauled off at gunpoint. Even if the system works, I'm opposed on principle to using such threats of violence to achieve it, and feel that if people put their heads to it, there's always a better way that's peaceful and voluntary. It's more complex, for sure, since it involves making sure everyone's interests are aligned. Pointing a gun at someone's head and saying "do this or else" is very expeditious and is the obvious solution that the left always chooses, but it usually produces inferior results in the long run.

Where did the threats of violence come fromHuh
Here in the UK cost doesn't come into in at least on the public side of things. If a DR thinks you need treatment you tend to get it. A persons wealth doesn't come into it as taxes pay for everyone's treatment.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 05:52 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 05:36 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Where did the threats of violence come fromHuh
Here in the UK cost doesn't come into in at least on the public side of things. If a DR thinks you need treatment you tend to get it.

What if someone walks into the doctor's office and says 'the waiting list is too long, I will pay you now, myself, out of pocket, to get the treatment today'? Of what if the doctor says 'the amount the government pays for this treatment is not enough to make it worth my while, so if you want the treatment, you'll have to pay an extra 1000 pounds out of pocket'? Or what if an Englishman says 'I don't believe in medical treatment, and I'll sign a waiver that no doctor has to give me care. If I'm sick, just let nature takes its course. Therefore, I'm opting out of the system and won't pay for it.'

What happens? Is that allowed, or prohibited? If it's prohibited, what does the government do to prevent it, and what happens to those who insist on doing it anyway?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 06:23 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
'Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?"

It's not that I, as a liberal, don't understand the concept. My problem, as a low income worker, is that I can't afford to pay for insurance. probably because I have a very low I.Q. (137). And am lazy! (Work a full time job, do not get any kind of government assistance, never have.)

Or, then again, maybe it's because the company I work for wants to exploit my labor. Which means I can't afford to actually BUY my own insurance! I'm not sure I like "Obamacare". I may wind up paying the fine. If so, I'll post here, when I get a fatal diagnosis of some sort. So you can come watch a fool die! Because you felt fools don't deserve to live. Please come! Pray at my bedside! Enjoy the death of someone failed! Just some failure!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 06:57 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 05:52 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What if someone walks into the doctor's office and says 'the waiting list is too long, I will pay you now, myself, out of pocket, to get the treatment today'? Of what if the doctor says 'the amount the government pays for this treatment is not enough to make it worth my while, so if you want the treatment, you'll have to pay an extra 1000 pounds out of pocket'? Or what if an Englishman says 'I don't believe in medical treatment, and I'll sign a waiver that no doctor has to give me care. If I'm sick, just let nature takes its course. Therefore, I'm opting out of the system and won't pay for it.'

What happens? Is that allowed, or prohibited? If it's prohibited, what does the government do to prevent it, and what happens to those who insist on doing it anyway?

Well you cant opt out of paying tax...well not legally. There isn't a portion of your tax that is earmarked purely for healthcare. You get taxed And your money gets distributed.

I've never heard of a case of someone bribing or threatening a DR to get treatment or moved up a waiting list. Id imagine if someone tried to threaten a dr all the dr would need to do is call the police, there is a zero tolerance policy towards violence in the nhs. As for a bribe its really up to the specialist and their team if you are a priority or not which will affect when you get treatment.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 07:20 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 07:24 PM by Losty.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 05:52 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 05:36 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Where did the threats of violence come fromHuh
Here in the UK cost doesn't come into in at least on the public side of things. If a DR thinks you need treatment you tend to get it.

What if someone walks into the doctor's office and says 'the waiting list is too long, I will pay you now, myself, out of pocket, to get the treatment today'? Of what if the doctor says 'the amount the government pays for this treatment is not enough to make it worth my while, so if you want the treatment, you'll have to pay an extra 1000 pounds out of pocket'? Or what if an Englishman says 'I don't believe in medical treatment, and I'll sign a waiver that no doctor has to give me care. If I'm sick, just let nature takes its course. Therefore, I'm opting out of the system and won't pay for it.'

What happens? Is that allowed, or prohibited? If it's prohibited, what does the government do to prevent it, and what happens to those who insist on doing it anyway?

Uhh I believe what you are referring to is law enforcement. It is unlikely that the fun (this should say gun lol) part will be brought in to these scenarios. Why do you think this is a left thing? All sides believe in the necessity of law enforcement. They disagree on laws sure, but I've never heard anyone from any side say, "hey let's get rid of the police, no need to use violence to force people to follow laws".
Maybe I am totally lost on this and that is not what you're talking about, but I can't think of anyone else with a gun forcing people to follow laws besides law enforcement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 07:31 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 06:23 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  'Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?"

It's not that I, as a liberal, don't understand the concept. My problem, as a low income worker, is that I can't afford to pay for insurance. probably because I have a very low I.Q. (137). And am lazy! (Work a full time job, do not get any kind of government assistance, never have.)

Or, then again, maybe it's because the company I work for wants to exploit my labor. Which means I can't afford to actually BUY my own insurance! I'm not sure I like "Obamacare". I may wind up paying the fine. If so, I'll post here, when I get a fatal diagnosis of some sort. So you can come watch a fool die! Because you felt fools don't deserve to live. Please come! Pray at my bedside! Enjoy the death of someone failed! Just some failure!

Assuming your story is correct, please put these 3 solutions in the right order, from best to worst:

1. Somebody should invest some time in you showing you how you can get the quality health care you need at a price you can afford, and showing you how to become financially independent and wealthy so that you're never again left in a situation where you'll die because you can't afford medical care.

2. Wealthy people who can afford more should help you out.

3. Force you to buy your own health insurance against your will and if you refuse, secretly take it out of your paycheck anyway, and if you don't have a paycheck, force other low income people to pay for it.

To me, that's the right order: option #1 is best, #2 is also good, and #3 shouldn't even be considered. To the self-proclaimed liberals on this forum, it's the opposite: #3 (namely Obamacare) is the only viable option, #2 would be nice but it's not possible, and #1 shouldn't even be considered.

First, I've already shown many times that Obamacare _IS_ option #3 because it forces you to either buy insurance, or forces your employer to buy it for you (which studies have shown is the same thing because you'll ultimately pay for it any with a lower salary), or, you can get a subsidy, which the government pays for by printing money, which is economists have proven is a regressive consumption tax that is borne by the poor and middle class, so you'll still end up paying for it.

As far as option #2, the self-proclaimed liberals would like to get it by raising taxes on the rich and using it to subsidize your Obamacare insurance, but they realize it's not politically viable. However, option #2 WAS a viable option before these same people took over. Remember, in the days before the government took over, there were thousands of charity hospitals throughout the country that provided quality, free health care to low income people, and nobody was ever denied access to care, and the whole system was funded by charitable contributions from wealthy donors.

As far as option #1, I wrote in many posts how you can get quality affordable care for 1/10 the normal price by simply going south of the border to one of the highly rated medical tourism facilities. I go to Mexico City for my periodic checkups. I know others who go to Cuba (despite the US ban) and tell me that they can get good care there for much less than Mexico. I also explained how you can invest what you would otherwise have had to pay for insurance in a health savings account, and end up with a million dollar 'medical warchest' in your old age to make sure you're prepared for any eventuality and financially independent.

So I'd argue that we libertarians have MORE compassion for those less fortunate than the so called "liberals" because they just want to go for the easy solution that's going to fuck you over in the long run and make you dependent your whole life, whereas I want to invest a little more effort to have a system that will enable to you live a long, healthy, prosperous life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Quote:As far as option #1, I wrote in many posts how you can get quality affordable care for 1/10 the normal price by simply going south of the border to one of the highly rated medical tourism facilities. I go to Mexico City for my periodic checkups. I know others who go to Cuba (despite the US ban) and tell me that they can get good care there for much less than Mexico. I also explained how you can invest what you would otherwise have had to pay for insurance in a health savings account, and end up with a million dollar 'medical warchest' in your old age to make sure you're prepared for any eventuality and financially independent.
I think traveling to Mexico or Cuba for a checkup would cost me a lot more than I pay for insurance and healthcare per month. But it's also true that I have health problems and need to see doctors fairly frequently, but I'd still say your plan doesn't seem to work for (1)people who need to see doctors often/sick people, or (2) people who don't live anywhere near Mexico.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes amyb's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: