210 réponses à ce sujet

[Sion1138]

For your edit, I disagree. All freedom means is the right to choose. It could mean and lead to many things, but in the end, it's just the fact you have a choice in the matter.

 

Alright, quickly go through all the things that happen to you on a daily basis, physiological and otherwise, and then see how much right to choose you really have.

 

Oh, but that's absurd right? We should draw some lines here.

 

What counts? What doesn't? Who decides, who gets to choose where choice comes in, where freedom comes in?

 

Freedom means what most people say it means.

[Dr.Fumbles]

Yes, there clearly is a need. Otherwise, nearly ten million people wouldn't have gained healthcare coverage under the plan. Not to mention that the leading number one reason for bankruptcy for individuals in the US (far and away, at over 40%) is due to overwhelming medical costs. Take note of that - that doesn't make sense if we are just talking about the poorest people in the country. People at low incomes are already on social programs like Passport and Medicaid, which covers all their expenses. The people who would be going bankrupt are middle class people who make enough to be above the poverty line, but who didn't have enough personal savings to cover either what their insurance didn't cover OR didnt have insurance at all. This isn't just a "poor people's issue." Without insurance coverage available regardless of your job status, history has shown average, middle class people suffered terribly under the old system.

People shouldn't have to pay for roads, or pay schools that teach people basic math + reading skills, or pay for an army to protect its borders + interests or pay for police forces + criminal investigation... there are things we take as totally natural should be guaranteed by the government in some way, shape or form. These are all vastly inferior to making everyone pay into a system that 1) benefits them directly with it's benefits, 2) benefits society by improving public health, so people aren't liedally dying in the street and 3) reducing the national debt by shifting the sickest and malt costly onto government medical coverage anyway, driving up costs for the entire nation along the way.

 

I understand that, but I am going to be truthful here. I couldn't give a rats arse care here for those people. I don't know them, nor will I ever know them making my interest in them 0. The only people I care about are my family and friends, and they are all ok, so why should I pay a good amount of my paycheck to people I am never going to see. Yes, this makes me sound like a giant Dick, but it's the truth of the matter. I actually care where my money goes.

 

For the second point, I think taxes are good to an extent to cover schools, military, police force. I do except those as good natural things.(The size of them however is another story.) As for health care, I still believe it should be personal choice. The only good point you did bring up however was the national debt one which piqued my interest.

[Dr.Fumbles]

Alright, quickly go through all the things that happen to you on a daily basis, physiological and otherwise, and then see how much right to choose you really have.

 

Oh, but that's absurd right? We should draw some lines here.

 

What counts? What doesn't? Who decides, who gets to choose where choice comes in, where freedom comes in?

 

Freedom means what most people say it means.

 

The answer to that is simple. I decide what it means, and you decide what it means as well. If we disagree, we fight it out, and the victor who wins has proven his ideology is better. That's what it means in it's most basic sense. I am not naive to know that we can't have some basic rights that override freedom. The question arises though on what those basic rights are, and I say health care isn't one of them.

[Sion1138]

The answer to that is simple. I decide what it means, and you decide what it means as well. If we disagree, we fight it out, and the victor who wins has proven his ideology is better. That's what it means in it's most basic sense. I am not naive to know that we can't have some basic rights that override freedom. The question arises though on what those basic rights are, and I say health care isn't one of them.

 

No need for that when there's this:

 

I couldn't give a rats arse care here for those people. I don't know them, nor will I ever know them making my interest in them 0.

 

You don't give a rat's ass about them, you value your freedom to have a bit more money in your pocket more than you value their freedom to not die from an infection.

 

It's that simple and to be clear, I don't hate you for it. But this really isn't an issue where the definition of freedom itself carries any weight at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

I understand that, but I am going to be truthful here. I couldn't give a rats arse care here for those people. I don't know them, nor will I ever know them making my interest in them 0. The only people I care about are my family and friends, and they are all ok, so why should I pay a good amount of my paycheck to people I am never going to see. Yes, this makes me sound like a giant Dick, but it's the truth of the matter. I actually care where my money goes.

For the second point, I think taxes are good to an extent to cover schools, military, police force. I do except those as good natural things.(The size of them however is another story.) As for health care, I still believe it should be personal choice. The only good point you did bring up however was the national debt one which piqued my interest.

Well, it's a very valid one to point to - a country is vested in not having it's people dying in the streets. It's a human right issue, a public health issue, an international relations issue... the list goes on. So let's just take it at face value that the richest country on the face of the Earth is going to have programs in place to provide emergency and deathbed treatment of its people, at bare minimum. That means the federal government is picking up the tab on the poorest of disadvantaged people... through Medicare, Medicaid, tax write offs to hospitals + other major providers... the U.S. government can't get around doing that.

In that scenario, you are having the government pay for ALL of these people. Throw in further the amount of money the government forks out in bankruptcy relief (again, with medical costs being the number one driver) and it's clear the government is taking it on the chin.

Now, with the exchanges, it's really quite brilliant - you enroll and are blindly lumped in with other people on your state who want similar policies. This means people young, old, sick, healthy, poor, rich, employed by a company or who are self-employed... they all can get a policy for the same price based on the coverage they want, not on the level of risk they bring. This frees people to leave jobs, open businesses, become freelance contractors instead of tied to one company... it allows them access to the same level of predictability with their coverage as someone who works for a company that offers benefits (granted, it's at a higher price because there isn't an employer paying into it, but that's just the nature of the beast).

This means the sickest people can afford policies, which means they AREN'T winding up on the government dime when they have a hospitalization, but rather on the private insurer who gave them the policy. Furthermore, since everyone must have coverage, the healthy people balance out the sick, but everyone is still paying less then they would have paid for buying an indiviudal policy in the old model.

The reason why? Groups are much easier (and cheaper)!to administer for. There is no customization of policy, no premium recalculation based on usage, no personalized marketing or communication material... the average percentage of the premiums paid for an indiviudal policy strictly for administration costs (claims processing, communication, overhead and support, NOT actual medical expenses) was 27% for an indiviudal policy. For group policies, they are closer to the realm of 10%. Yes, by bundling people together in a group, they cost nearly three times LESS than if they go out and buy a policy themselve.

It saves money - money for medical providers (who have less people without insurance coverage that they must send to collections or write off as losses), money for insurance carriers, who can save money by treating everyone the same in their process, money for policy holders who get a discount for buying in a group that could only previously be achieved through an employer or collective bargaining group and money for the government, who does not bear the sole brunt of the sickest and poorest individuals, but spreads that risk to private insurance companies, who gladly will take it with over ten million new people now able to afford and pay for their product.


It's FAR from a perfect solution. And there's still a lot of room for improvement on all fronts. But it's a system that is proven to save money for every group involved (even if there are individuals who see no direct change in their experience - specifically those who already had coverage through their job and were already getting a really sweet deal to begin with).

[Katiefrost]

http://www.telegraph...th-the-BBC.html
 
Say goodbye to Doctor Who and Sherklock, Whovians and Sherklockians!
 

Shreklock after the BBC cuts. Eternal Phoenix will be hired to animate cartoon episodes of the series. BBC bosses are confident that the quality of the show won't change.

This reminds me of PBS's problems with threats of funding cuts by our conservative politicians here in the USA. Why is it that right wing conservatives are often in support of funding cuts to not only public broadcasting, but also to public libraries as well? They'd have companies like FOX news take over if they could.

[Voxr]

This reminds me of PBS's problems with threats of funding cuts by our conservative politicians here in the USA. Why is it that right wing conservatives are often in support of funding cuts to not only public broadcasting, but also to public libraries as well? They'd have companies like FOX news take over if they could.

Because it doesn't directly benefit the GOP. You see with a public library you have access to information abound. Allowing yourself to form your own opinion. One that might differ from whatever the Koch Bros are lobbying for. Meanwhile good ol' Bill is more than happy to spout whatever is thrown his way for the sake of "freedom and truth".

 

The same can be said about the liberal counterparts. It's completely ridiculous.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

noksenonvul lozaan vokul

 

[Dr.Fumbles]

Well, it's a very valid one to point to - a country is vested in not having it's people dying in the streets. It's a human right issue, a public health issue, an international relations issue... the list goes on. So let's just take it at face value that the richest country on the face of the Earth is going to have programs in place to provide emergency and deathbed treatment of its people, at bare minimum. That means the federal government is picking up the tab on the poorest of disadvantaged people... through Medicare, Medicaid, tax write offs to hospitals + other major providers... the U.S. government can't get around doing that.

In that scenario, you are having the government pay for ALL of these people. Throw in further the amount of money the government forks out in bankruptcy relief (again, with medical costs being the number one driver) and it's clear the government is taking it on the chin.

Now, with the exchanges, it's really quite brilliant - you enroll and are blindly lumped in with other people on your state who want similar policies. This means people young, old, sick, healthy, poor, rich, employed by a company or who are self-employed... they all can get a policy for the same price based on the coverage they want, not on the level of risk they bring. This frees people to leave jobs, open businesses, become freelance contractors instead of tied to one company... it allows them access to the same level of predictability with their coverage as someone who works for a company that offers benefits (granted, it's at a higher price because there isn't an employer paying into it, but that's just the nature of the beast).

This means the sickest people can afford policies, which means they AREN'T winding up on the government dime when they have a hospitalization, but rather on the private insurer who gave them the policy. Furthermore, since everyone must have coverage, the healthy people balance out the sick, but everyone is still paying less then they would have paid for buying an indiviudal policy in the old model.

The reason why? Groups are much easier (and cheaper)!to administer for. There is no customization of policy, no premium recalculation based on usage, no personalized marketing or communication material... the average percentage of the premiums paid for an indiviudal policy strictly for administration costs (claims processing, communication, overhead and support, NOT actual medical expenses) was 27% for an indiviudal policy. For group policies, they are closer to the realm of 10%. Yes, by bundling people together in a group, they cost nearly three times LESS than if they go out and buy a policy themselve.

It saves money - money for medical providers (who have less people without insurance coverage that they must send to collections or write off as losses), money for insurance carriers, who can save money by treating everyone the same in their process, money for policy holders who get a discount for buying in a group that could only previously be achieved through an employer or collective bargaining group and money for the government, who does not bear the sole brunt of the sickest and poorest individuals, but spreads that risk to private insurance companies, who gladly will take it with over ten million new people now able to afford and pay for their product.


It's FAR from a perfect solution. And there's still a lot of room for improvement on all fronts. But it's a system that is proven to save money for every group involved (even if there are individuals who see no direct change in their experience - specifically those who already had coverage through their job and were already getting a really sweet deal to begin with).

 

My issue arises with the lack of customization part which to an extent it saves money, but why should I be paying for female examines and health problems when I am a male? So for example, that $140 covers all my health problems and that for the females when all I need is the male stuff which would cost me $75 instead. The grouping makes me pay a set price when I don't need half of it.

[Inquisitor Recon]

You don't give a rat's ass about them, you value your freedom to have a bit more money in your pocket more than you value their freedom to not die from an infection.

You almost make that sound like it's a bad thing.

[Katiefrost]

My issue arises with the lack of customization part which to an extent it saves money, but why should I be paying for female examines and health problems when I am a male? So for example, that $140 covers all my health problems and that for the females when all I need is the male stuff which would cost me $75 instead. The grouping makes me pay a set price when I don't need half of it.

Because your mother was a woman, without whom you would not be here. Also because you might have a female mate and you might have daughters as well. No man or woman is an island.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

You almost make that sound like it's a bad thing.

when the chips are down, people will pick whats convinient and is an instant gratification over nuanced concepts such as long-term thinking.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

Because your mother was a woman, without whom you would not be here. Also because you might have a female mate and you might have daughters as well. No man or woman is an island.

the comment you replied to is a prime example of "false economy" thinking. He thinks that by not paying up for these things to benefit the women in our society he thinks hes saving money. but the bigger picture is, when women suffer, mothers suffer, when mothers suffer children suffer, then families suffer, and that suffering fuels things like crime.

 

Its overly simplified but its how these things work in the bigger picture.

[Dr.Fumbles]

Because your mother was a woman, without whom you would not be here. Also because you might have a female mate and you might have daughters as well. No man or woman is an island.

 

Paying more for then what is needed is no excuse for that. Customization is not a bad thing. I work hard for my money, so I would like some control on where it goes.

[In Exile]

You almost make that sound like it's a bad thing.

 

Even on the most utilitarian scale of value, where we reduce the worth of human life exclusively to a dollar figure, the net benefit of a (mostly) healthy (in the sense of having diseases under control) adult to the economy (and therefore to you) probably equals or outweighs the actual cost of care you're paying. (This is because of the fact that there's no linear relationship here - you get increasing marginal returns on your investment in care; this is why we industrialized everything to start with back in the 18th-19th centuries.)

 

So, it's not just that you have to actively prefer to have people die of disease in return for immediate spending money, but you'd have to be in favour of it to your own detriment.

 

Which, again, you can believe. But it's as close to a pro-human suffering position as you can get without starting to join unsavory political hate groups. 

[Dr.Fumbles]

Even on the most utilitarian scale of value, where we reduce the worth of human life exclusively to a dollar figure, the net benefit of a (mostly) healthy (in the sense of having diseases under control) adult to the economy (and therefore to you) probably equals or outweighs the actual cost of care you're paying. (This is because of the fact that there's no linear relationship here - you get increasing marginal returns on your investment in care; this is why we industrialized everything to start with back in the 18th-19th centuries.)

 

So, it's not just that you have to actively prefer to have people die of disease in return for immediate spending money, but you'd have to be in favour of it to your own detriment.

 

Which, again, you can believe. But it's as close to a pro-human suffering position as you can get without starting to join unsavory political hate groups. 

 

That money saved though could help more people out in the future. With that savings, you could invest in a successful business which would put more money in the economy therefore improving it. Instead, it is being taken away therefore eliminating the possibility.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Even on the most utilitarian scale of value, where we reduce the worth of human life exclusively to a dollar figure, the net benefit of a (mostly) healthy (in the sense of having diseases under control) adult to the economy (and therefore to you) probably equals or outweighs the actual cost of care you're paying. (This is because of the fact that there's no linear relationship here - you get increasing marginal returns on your investment in care; this is why we industrialized everything to start with back in the 18th-19th centuries.)

 

So, it's not just that you have to actively prefer to have people die of disease in return for immediate spending money, but you'd have to be in favour of it to your own detriment.

 

Which, again, you can believe. But it's as close to a pro-human suffering position as you can get without starting to join unsavory political hate groups. 

All of the material and expertise to produce these medications, to perform these surgeries, and to implement increasingly extensive and costly treatments comes from a limited pool of resources. When there is only so much to go around, who decides who gets what? The government? Run by the sort who'll fight tooth and nail to keep their special healthcare plans while the plebs have to deal with whatever laws they pass. Can't say I have much faith in that system.

 

Whether or not I'm paying for some random scumbags medical care somewhere isn't going to delay or accelerate the world going to hell. The basics to prevent the spread of disease are one thing, but this notion that everybody can have access to the best medical treatment isn't realistic. There is simply not enough to go around. What determines who is first in line?

 

"Pro-human suffering position"? No I am merely looking out for myself first as everybody does regardless of whatever they claim otherwise.

[Fast Jimmy]

My issue arises with the lack of customization part which to an extent it saves money, but why should I be paying for female examines and health problems when I am a male? So for example, that $140 covers all my health problems and that for the females when all I need is the male stuff which would cost me $75 instead. The grouping makes me pay a set price when I don't need half of it.

 

You can choose MANY levels of customization on the Exchange policies - what provider networks they have, how or high your deductible is, what type of annual maximums you can pay out of pocket, what your copays are... you can pick any number of different policies and have literally dozens if not hundreds of options, depending on your state. And these will only grow in the future, as every insurance company is looking to make their footprint bigger on the exchanges in 2016.

 

And you wouldn't be saving any money... if you got your own policy outside of the exchanges (which you can still do, as they aren't outlawed or anything), you would be paying significantly more for the same exact coverage. Even if you are the healthiest, youngest person that passes the pre-screen physical, your premiums would be higher than going on the exchange for the same exact coverage. Again - its much cheaper for the insurance company to put you in a group than give you an individual policy and that's reflected in your reduced premium.

 

Not to mention you can earn subsidies for going on the exchange, so you have even greater opportunity to pay less than, as nearly anyone who has a household income under $100K can qualify for some form of assistance.

 

 

Honestly, you are complaining about the a small drip from the roof leaking and demanding to step outside into the rainstorm. The best way to pay less is to hop in an exchange, get your coverage through your employer or hope you get covered under a government program like Medicare/Medicaid. Anything else that the private market provided is vastly inferior to those three options.

[Dr.Fumbles]

You can choose MANY levels of customization on the Exchange policies - what provider networks they have, how or high your deductible is, what type of annual maximums you can pay out of pocket, what your copays are... you can pick any number of different policies and have literally dozens if not hundreds of options, depending on your state. And these will only grow in the future, as every insurance company is looking to make their footprint bigger on the exchanges in 2016.

 

And you wouldn't be saving any money... if you got your own policy outside of the exchanges (which you can still do, as they aren't outlawed or anything), you would be paying significantly more for the same exact coverage. Even if you are the healthiest, youngest person that passes the pre-screen physical, your premiums would be higher than going on the exchange for the same exact coverage. Again - its much cheaper for the insurance company to put you in a group than give you an individual policy and that's reflected in your reduced premium.

 

Not to mention you can earn subsidies for going on the exchange, so you have even greater opportunity to pay less than, as nearly anyone who has a household income under $100K can qualify for some form of assistance.

 

 

Honestly, you are complaining about the a small drip from the roof leaking and demanding to step outside into the rainstorm. The best way to pay less is to hop in an exchange, get your coverage through your employer or hope you get covered under a government program like Medicare/Medicaid. Anything else that the private market provided is vastly inferior to those three options.

 

Eh, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would rather deal with the rain storm then what we have currently. I hate socialized medicine and the like. Removes capitalism which is what the country was founded on.

[Garryydde]

Eh, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would rather deal with the rain storm then what we have currently. I hate socialized medicine and the like. Removes capitalism which is what the country was founded on.

The thing about socialized healthcare is that it's free but you'll die waiting for treatment.

[Fast Jimmy]

The thing about socialized healthcare is that it's free but you'll die waiting for treatment.

This is a double edged sword.

There have been studies that have found there are no significant wait time differences between Canada and US systems, there are studies that have found 2-3 times differences... but such barriers exist in the US in other forms. Starting a new job? It may be 60 days before your coverage kicks in... so you wait two months to see a doctor if it is not an emergency. Is it at the very end of year? Better wait until January 1st so it applies to the next calendar year's deductible instead of "wasting" the money. Not enough money saved up? Then hold off on that procedure or else you'll need to put it on the credit card and hope you don't have more follow-ups that will cause it to grow. Need to see a specialist today? Well, you'll pay through the nose in your plan if you don't make an appointment with another doctor first to tell you it's okay to see the specialist you REALLY need to talk to.

I know many people who have to "time" their healthcare because of these barriers, which can add in just as long wait times and delays (sometimes even more given the circumstances). My grandmother put off a vital heart surgery for six weeks because she missed the enrollment period of her employer. The reason why she missed it? She was in the hospital! It took her six weeks to get her appeal approved, when she could have died because of the surgery (not to mention the discomfort she went through from the chest pain she was having for over 45 days). She couldn't afford the surgery out of pocket and the "free market" dragged its heels on giving her the coverage she needed to have a life-saving surgery.

I don't want socialized medicine and the complaint about wait times is, while valid, hardly the only consideration... especially when immediate access to affordable care is not (at all) guaranteed under the pure free market solution.

[Fast Jimmy]

Eh, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I would rather deal with the rain storm then what we have currently. I hate socialized medicine and the like. Removes capitalism which is what the country was founded on.

First of all... the country wasn't built on capitalism. The first major colonies in the Americas were government funded. Without England taxing its citizens to fund building settlements they would never directly see or benefit from, the entire country wouldn't exist. So consider that when you talk about unfairly being taxed for no direct benefit.

Secondly... it's working. The system IS WORKING. More people have coverage, more insurance companies are making money, more medical providers are seeing patients and, despite what every critic said before the bill passed, the Congressional Budget Office actually LOWERED its forecast for the rise of medical costs for the first time in decades.

Quite frankly, I'm not all that concerned if you don't think it's fair... its doing everything better by every stretch of measurement than the system we had before. If you want to talk about a new system thag fixes problems to the same or better degree, please let me listen - I'm all ears. Besides, the way the entire bill is set up, average tax payers aren't financing it. The extra revenue comes in terms of cost savings for Medicare (which have already begun materializing) as well as added tax revenues from the highest, most luxurious (Cadillac)health insurance plans, primarily offered by large companies to their top executives.

Having the top corporate fat cats cover the gap for what Medicare would have been paying otherwise under the old system sounds like a stellar way to provide everyone with an equal shot at healthcare and the freedom to not be tired to their jobs for fearing of losing their coverage and going broke.

[Aimi]

Out of curiosity, when was the last time this thread was about the Conservative Party and its effort to destroy any semblance of impartiality in the BBC?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

There's been walls of texts in page 6 and 7. tl;dr

 

What have you been saying, in short?

[Voxr]

There's been walls of texts in page 6 and 7. tl;dr

 

What have you been saying, in short?

Capitalism is good. It's my money and I need it now. Socialism is weird. Let other people deal with their own ****. IDGAF.

 

That's the gist I gathered.