Al_B on 23/3/2010 at 22:05
Edit: Sniped by Chade - I must type faster...
You're right - without some form of corrective feedback in place there's nothing to stop a few from dragging down the system. The people prescribing treatment need to have some form of accountability - something which to an outsider appears to be lacking at the moment within USA healthcare. I'd be interested to know what sort of controls / limits the insurance companies place on medical professionals for recommending treatments at the moment. (This is a non sarcastic comment - I really don't know if the people recommending high cost treatments have to ultimately justify the expense).
Turtle on 23/3/2010 at 22:11
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
I Don't want to pay for other people's problems. Point. Fucking. Blank.
You realize that you already do, right?
So do I.
So does fett.
People who can't afford insurance end up in the ER when things get serious enough and often can't afford to pay their medical bills. Hospitals charge everyone else more to help cover their losses.
So, because some people can't afford insurance, everyone pays a higher price for health care, even if it's really your insurance company doing the paying.
Oh, and I'll be sure to pass along your "Dr. at work writin' me scrips" tip to the folks sitting around in my local ER. I'm sure I'll have many thanks to pass along later.
Matthew on 23/3/2010 at 22:26
Wow. I don't think I ever realised just how many people were totally fucking self-centred until I read the healthcare debates. Now I know why charities constantly need to beg people to donate.
Aerothorn on 23/3/2010 at 22:41
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
Anyway, so fett has an issue. Not my problem. I am not a communist.
Even ignoring the fact that the entirety of the post is one of the crassest comments I have ever seen on TTLG (and that's saying something) your definition of communism is a strange one. People who take care of eachother financially = communists?
Wow, I guess I really
am a Red.
Epos Nix on 23/3/2010 at 23:18
Not that any of this matters anyway. Every day at least 150,000 people are born on this planet. Before long there will be so many of us that we simply won't have the resources to sustain such a massive population. In that respect, there's a nice irony in any health care plan where, despite good intentions of wanting to save the masses from their own suffering, the burgeoning population and unchecked growth will lead to the destruction of more than a few of us. Toss in the fact that we have come to ignore genetic faults and reproduce in spite of them and compound that over a few centuries and things get even uglier.
This is a decent article on the situation: (
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/overpopulation-is-main-threat-to-planet-521925.html) http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/overpopulation-is-main-threat-to-planet-521925.html
DDL on 23/3/2010 at 23:30
Technically overpopulation is the ONLY human-based threat to the planet, with 'overpopulation' being anything greater than maybe 0 humans. It's also utterly utterly irrelevant to this debate, so bringing it up smacks of admitting defeat.
Adding eugenics in to the mix just compounds the hilarity.
CCCToad on 23/3/2010 at 23:42
Quote Posted by Al_B
This is a sensible attitude if you have full control over your health. However, the problem with that argument is that you don't. Even if you take complete care of youself you could be hit by a car tomorrow and left with expensive, life-long conditions that many people couldn't afford.
The risk to everyone else isn't as great as everyone is making out, since most likely what would happen is that he would go into debt to pay for whatever surgery he needed if he got injured. Even with insurance, that accident still will indirectly affect pricing the same way it does with auto insurance.
Kuuso on 23/3/2010 at 23:48
Quote Posted by DDL
Technically overpopulation is the ONLY human-based threat to the planet, with 'overpopulation' being anything greater than maybe 0 humans. It's also utterly utterly irrelevant to this debate, so bringing it up smacks of admitting defeat.
Adding eugenics in to the mix just compounds the hilarity.
Funnily enough, overpopulation is fought by ensuring a good health care.
To those who say "I don't want to pay for other people's problems": Good, universal healthcare is for the best of the country and economy, which means you will also gain from it by being able to live in more of a happy and dandy country. This is why every nordic country is full of happiness and flowers.
Epos Nix on 23/3/2010 at 23:48
Quote:
It's also utterly utterly irrelevant to this debate, so bringing it up smacks of admitting defeat.
I suppose the topic of overpopulation is only as relevant to this debate as people's willingness to see it as the threat it is. In that respect, I agree with you.
Here's hoping for a pro-natural selection president in 2012 though.
