[2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by JosieQ. » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:08 pm

I'm sorry, I see that I originally used the word "healthcare" which is less precise than the "insurance" I am talking about.

What worries me now is that you took healthcare to mean HEALTHCARE, and you think that Americans are now under legal obligation to go to doctors when they are sick? I mean because if you're not talking about insurance, that's what healthcare is, getting care for your health. And you seem to be arguing for this idea, forced care? Surely I'm misunderstanding? (Side-note: Healthcare in the sense of going to doctors for treatment IS a business, it's a product.)

Anyway, the important thing is I'm talking about the fact that we are required by law to carry insurance, which is a violation of freedom.

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by JosieQ. » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:30 am

Insurance is a product. Pay attention.

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by Astrogirl » Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:18 pm

JosieQ wrote:
Astrogirl wrote:Oh yeah, rebel against joining all other industrialized nations regarding basic human decency.


Requiring people, by law, to purchase a product is basic human decency?

The problem is already that you consider healthcare to be a product.

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by JosieQ » Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:58 pm

Astrogirl wrote:Oh yeah, rebel against joining all other industrialized nations regarding basic human decency.


Requiring people, by law, to purchase a product is basic human decency?

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by Geekoid » Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:16 pm

JosieQ wrote:I'm late to the party here, but did I miss the part where everyone had a rebellion against the fact that there's a law requiring us to have healthcare?

Because I thought for sure that when that passed, years ago, we'd all rise up against our oppressors.

Everyone seemed to just take that in stride though. Like it was a good idea.

Did I just sleep through uprising, or something?




What? The congress passed a law requiring people to pay for health care.

in 1790 ships over 150 ton were mandated to carry medical supplies.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=257

then in 1792 congress passed a law forcing men to a mandatory purchase if firearms.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=394

in 1798 congress expanded the health care law so ship owner had to pay 20 cents, per month to the port. funds to be used for the healthcare of seaman. That cost was withheld form the sailors pay.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?c ... recNum=728


This sort of thing is, and always has been, part of America.

LPT: read a book.

You aren't being oppressed. Unless you are an immigrant.

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by NeatNit » Sat Aug 04, 2018 9:24 pm

Why is this thread still going?

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by Astrogirl » Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:13 pm

Oh yeah, rebel against joining all other industrialized nations regarding basic human decency.

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by JosieQ » Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:19 am

I'm late to the party here, but did I miss the part where everyone had a rebellion against the fact that there's a law requiring us to have healthcare?

Because I thought for sure that when that passed, years ago, we'd all rise up against our oppressors.

Everyone seemed to just take that in stride though. Like it was a good idea.

Did I just sleep through uprising, or something?

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by Sizlak Jones » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:45 pm

Image

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by Astrogirl » Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:38 pm

You noticed the countries with the more doctors have higher taxes?

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by Guest » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:08 am

Aussieguest, no, simply because a completely privatized defense force wouldn't be a national defense force by definition. Theoretically a mercenary/private military force could get to that level but that's not what we want or need, and I'm not arguing anti-government or no government either. Just don't overdo it.

The free market + low taxes will allow a nation to grow. Say you take in 39% in taxes for all corporations, pretty much what we were doing before when you count both federal and state, then your rival nation/state takes in 25% for taxes. Yeah you're taking in a lot for a while but over the years more of those corporations + new corporations open in your rival state than you have. You're missing out in the long run. You lower those taxes just a bit, not even having to equal your rival considering that your nation is "better" and you're on a equal footing and not significantly handicapped on that front. Over the years what you didn't take in taxes gets reinvested into growth, and you're not hurt significantly because you draw in most of your federal revenue from income tax anyway.

Astrogirl, with Canadia one of the only countries the doctors per inhabitants number is better than it's still not good enough. The comparison looks like it's not bad on the front but the reality is the USA has more population than Canadia, more health problems, and Canadia still has issues with its single payer system like long waiting lists for very significant operations. Canadia also has a highly merit-based system for immigration, a immigrant has to prove the ability to work, hold a job/and or pursuit of education.

Instead of seeing it as 2.5 doctors as not that bad I would rather aim for the 4. I agree with making medical studies affordable but I think that free is unwise, unless you make it highly merit-based, which is what we already have with certain scholarships. Free without merit-based could mean you are replacing each potentially good doctor's education with 4-5 student failures and actually losing out on a doctor for the amount of funding that you spent.

We don't have the laxest regulations because small businesses pay about 5k-7k per worker per year to follow federal regulations. I'm not saying no to regulations either, some regulations have to stay, they are common sense and needed, like food, health, and worker safety amongst others. But when we get as far as a small business owner having to spend that much something is going wrong there.

We had the highest corporate tax (35% federal-39% when you count the state) before recent changes when you count the additional state tax on corporate, and we have the 21st highest income tax.

I'm not saying don't have your single payer system, I am saying if you have to have it? Consider all those things (small businesses, corporations, competition with other nations, number of doctors) and make sure we are covered on that front. I'm not totally against you guys there and I don't get a bit of the aggressiveness here, I hope you guys had a merry christmas and a happy new year. I suppose it comes with the argument, but realize it is not needed. We are all having a talk to make things better for everyone, I hope?

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by Astrogirl » Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:08 am

Guest wrote:Look, as long as the amount of hospitals and doctors increase in the US, I will be satisfied.

With 2.5 doctors per 1000 inhabitants http://www.who.int/gho/health_workforce ... ensity/en/ the US is slightly better than Canadia and slightly worse than the UK. Quite a bit worse than many other European countries, which partially reach 4. But not totally horrible. If you want more doctors, make medical studies free.

Right now we need some growth and innovation on that front and I truly believe that the free market can achieve that. We have been handicapped by strict regulations, high taxes, and many other changes put in the recent years.

The US has the freeest market, laxest regulations and lowest taxes and still you are in the bottom range of industrialized nations. Your opinion does not seem to be backed by facts.

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by AussieGuest » Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:13 am

Guest wrote:Now you're acting like I am arguing against the concept of health insurance itself. I am not. Those people and the gap will be covered once affordable private insurance is available.

Look, as long as the amount of hospitals and doctors increase in the US, I will be satisfied. Right now we need some growth and innovation on that front and I truly believe that the free market can achieve that. We have been handicapped by strict regulations, high taxes, and many other changes put in the recent years.

Okay, lets go on a tangent that leads back to this:

Do you think the free market can satisfactorily provide national defence services? (i.e. Army, airforce, navy, and I suppose nuclear arsenal [since that's apparently a vital thing these days]).

If yes, why? If no, why?

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by Guest » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:58 am

Now you're acting like I am arguing against the concept of health insurance itself. I am not. Those people and the gap will be covered once affordable private insurance is available.

Look, as long as the amount of hospitals and doctors increase in the US, I will be satisfied. Right now we need some growth and innovation on that front and I truly believe that the free market can achieve that. We have been handicapped by strict regulations, high taxes, and many other changes put in the recent years.

As for guest2's comments I think they are very misleading and exaggerated. Relying on identity politics to disparage someone's character rather than addressing the persons arguements will only get you so far. His alleged involvement of outing gay students supposedly happened in the 1970s and it comes from one mans claim. He himself denies it and has said that people have equal rights under the bill of rights and constitution. I can accept the felony as a criticism of a persons character but i believe he paid for his crime of giving more money individually than was legally allowed.

I can accept aussieguests criticism of Molyneux as well it is at least based on some listening and discussion of him at the very least. You could say that from your own opinion but note that he also backs up his reasoning with information anyone can check up on online about the importance of a childs development "0-5". I wouldn't say he is blaming all women but rather placing some reasonable responsibility on them.

If the people in virginia could afford it yeah I would love it if they could start a privately owned insurance company or even a medical clinic or hospital by pooling funds together. It would even benefit their community and return their investment over time. They live next to the best hospital in the state but cannot afford it when they are covering their insurance plus many other people's at that cost.

I don't think that overtaxing or overcharge is fair on small business owners. Perhaps if you have to have it your way consider a compromise where small business owners get a break in taxes or healthcare by a certain percentage while someone of the same income level don't.

I am not racist, misogynist, or uncaring as you are trying to imply. Also, I am a woman and not white. I would like my privacy to be respected otherwise.

I care about the US and western civilization in general. What has been done so far is not perfect but its better than many others. Improve it by making more businesses, being charitable, and innovating more. You are all very reasonable and intelligent people, you should understand my reasoning.

Re: [2017-12-08] Healthcare

Post by AussieGuest » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:37 pm

Guest2 wrote:And let's look at some more Molyneux quotes shall we?
--trimmed--

Now you're just being unfair with your quotemining. You're picking stuff from where he's raving and ranting, which is only, like, 70% of the time his mouth is moving :evil: .

Molyneux is an vehement anarcho-capitalist*, which on its own should be enough to raise questions regarding the quality of his thought. I say this because anarcho-communism is a nice idea -essentially that people can get together, cooperate, and share- that requires levels of personal responsibility, intellect, and wide-reaching trust that just aren't prevalent enough the present (I won't assume the future will be the same, but it's not going to be different in the near future, at least).

Anarcho-capitalism tries to solve the same core problems by invoking The Market. In doing so they end up with problems like trying to sue people through competing private courts -- and giving solutions like "Well, if the parties cannot agree on which court to go to**, they just go to a third court which will decide for them!"

'Course, there's also the question of on what basis do these courts make their decisions, and a tendency to answer it with "Case law, obviously," and completely miss the problems.

*Given that it's a left-wing ideology, I do have to admit it means he has at least a basic value in common with me (or is inconsistent in a way that completely undermines any anarchist system... which I wouldn't put past him).
**For example, Alice might want to go to Alice Legit Court Services Co. while Bob wants Bobby Genuine Courts Inc.

Top