Let us **** over Imran and Apocalypse in the housing market thread number two

[Kuciwalker]

What would have changed is that everyone would have had a set minimum level of health insurance provided at heavily discounted rates because that organization would have covered every American and so had economies of scale. It really was a no brainer, slam dunk win.

Again, there's not necessarily an achievable economy of scale.

[Dinner]

The last half century of experience from every major industrialized country on Earth, other then America, says other wise.

[Patroklos]

What would have changed is that everyone would have had a set minimum level of health insurance provided at heavily discounted rates because that organization would have covered every American and so had economies of scale.

What would have changed was that my taxes would have gone up to pay for people who could not be arsed to insure themselves. And not everyones taxes would go up either, just those of us that were responsible in the first place.

like you, they hadn't bothered to actually read or understand how it worked and just feared change.

We were more worried about how our system of govermnet works. There is that whole thing about valuing individual freedom as well, I realize that is not a concern of yours.

No, most people have crappy coverage because they can't afford better.

And they can't afford it because of their financial choices in the past, made to secure none mandatory services or luxuries for the most part.

Why not?

Why don't they pay for my food?

My water bill?

My electric bill?

My gas?

My mortgage?

My cable/internet (a requirment for life according to Che).

Why shouldn't the government provide a base level of health care for everyone so that they can get some free preventative care

Because pretty much everyone can get that, they just choose not to. Sneakers or health insurance? Diseny vactation of health insurance? Cable or health insurance? Used instead of new car or health insurance? Drinking a case a week or health insurace. Plasma television of health insurance? Visiting grandma on Chrismas of health insurance? Drugs or health insurance?

And yeah there are choices like food or health insurance, electricity or health insurance and water or health insurance. And this may be a true no **** dilema for few, but for most they are at that crossroads because they ****ed up (or rather did what they whated vise what was responsible) one of the previous choices.

Freedom is a *****, and as I often have to repeat it is not made up of just doing what you want, but being on the hook for the consequences of the choices you make.

(costly for the government as well as the patient, because the government is on the hook for it if the patient doesn't pay)?

Lets add up government paid for emergency health care and a 10% raise in taxes for 300 million people and see which one is bigger.

Then again we are just going to take it from the middle class and rich who were responsible enough factor in healthcare into their finances/priorities right? Carry on.

[quote]

The last half century of experience from every major industrialized country on Earth, other then America, says other wise.

Lets just have the government do everything.

[Dinner]

Health care is important because people die when they can't afford proper care in a timely manner, because actually providing preventative care massively saves money by preventing small problems from becoming big problems, and because one large market works more efficiently then a small fragmented market. You just can't get around that fact; health care costs are killing American competitiveness and this is a way to improve service while slashing costs by creating economies of scale.

[Patroklos]

Health care is important because people die when they can't afford proper care in a timely manner, because actually providing preventative care massively saves money by preventing small problems from becoming big problems, and because one large market works more efficiently then a small fragmented market. You just can't get around that fact; health care costs are killing American competitiveness and this is a way to improve service while slashing costs by creating economies of scale.

No arguement, per usual.

Can we get a parrot smilie?

[Dinner]

I guess Patty thinks we should do away with the fire department, and the police department, and the libraries, and the public schools, and the universities, and every other service where the government does a better job then the market does.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

No arguement, per usual.

Can we get a parrot smilie?

The argument is clear. Universal coverage is better because it provides increased coverage at greatly reduced cost. Can you really not follow that argument?

I guess you just can't counter it and that is why you are reduced to such lame retorts.

[Patroklos]

Entitlements Oerdin. I can't help it that sombody putsomething under the scope of government 100 years ago and now they are a defacto entitlement. There is certainly nothing in the constitution about any of those things.

But where does it stop? Imran asked a good question, why shouldn't any of those services I listed be paid for by the government if we already pay for those others you listed?

The simple fact is we dont need public health care. What we need is Americans to exercise their choices responsibly. I realize to you people are just lab rats that are incapable of thought and thus need to be babied and given endless second chances, I happen to believe in the value and intelligece of people and that it isn't my fault if the willingly chose to be idiots (apply to housing).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The last half century of experience from every major industrialized country on Earth, other then America, says other wise.

Oh really? Controlling for ever confounding factor it's been conclusively demonstrated that government-run medical services cost less and provide better care than systems of private insurance?

Okay then, carry on.

[Dinner]

The constitution isn't supposed to spell out the day to day transactions of the government. That you some how think it should shows how little you know about our constitution.

If a given service is vital and can be better provided collectively at decreased costs then it should. The key word there being vital; it has to be a life or death type situation as how people die without proper medical care.

[Patroklos]

The constitution isn't supposed to spell out the day to day transactions of the government. That you some how think it should shows how little you know about our constitution.

Oerdin, you make me sad

It doesn't tell us WHAT we can do, it tells us what we HAVE to do. And health care is not one of the HAVE to dos.

If a given service is vital and can be better provided collectively at decreased costs then it should. The key word there being vital; it has to be a life or death type situation as how people die without proper medical care.

Life and death? Like highways?

Why should the government not pay for any of these?

My water bill?

My electric bill?

My gas?

My mortgage?

My cable/internet (a requirment for life according to Che).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Because pretty much everyone can get that, they just choose not to. Sneakers or health insurance? Diseny vactation of health insurance? Cable or health insurance? Used instead of new car or health insurance? Drinking a case a week or health insurace. Plasma television of health insurance? Visiting grandma on Chrismas of health insurance? Drugs or health insurance?

I'd think that neither sneakers or disney vacations or cable or a new car are basic human rights. Other basic human rights like food are subsidized by the government (ie, food stamps for the poor)

And yeah there are choices like food or health insurance, electricity or health insurance and water or health insurance. And this may be a true no **** dilema for few, but for most they are at that crossroads because they ****ed up (or rather did what they whated vise what was responsible) one of the previous choices.

The poor are lazy slackers! If they wanted to work they could make something of themselves!

Freedom is a *****, and as I often have to repeat it is not made up of just doing what you want, but being on the hook for the consequences of the choices you make.

Welfare constricts freedom! We should just have the poor starve on the streets. That'll teach 'em!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I guess Patty thinks we should do away with the fire department, and the police department, and the libraries, and the public schools, and the universities, and every other service where the government does a better job then the market does.

Yep. Apparently. Get your own damned private fire and police departments! Having government run is constricting mah freedom!!

[Patroklos]

I'd think that neither sneakers or disney vacations or cable or a new car are basic human rights.

Exactly. But becasue they would rather spend their money on such things instead of health insurance, should I really feel sorry for them when they whine about health insurance?

Other basic human rights like food are subsidized by the government (ie, food stamps for the poor)

Is water? Electricity?

And do we not provide basic emergency care free already? Food stamps is a bad arguement, and you know it.

The poor are lazy slackers! If they wanted to work they could make something of themselves!

Who said anything about the poor? Oh, you think it is just the poor in dire financial straights because of poor financial choices? Interesting...

Welfare constricts freedom! We should just have the poor starve on the streets. That'll teach 'em!

If they have the means to suppor themselves, and willingly choose not to, yeah.

Yep. Apparently. Get your own damned private fire and police departments! Having government run is constricting mah freedom!!

Victory is sweet

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Exactly. But becasue they would rather spend their money on such things instead of health insurance, should I really feel sorry for them when they whine about health insurance?

Because they may have to make a choice on feeding themselves or getting insurance. Oh, what wasteful peoples!!

Is water? Electricity?

Both are heavily subsidized by the government. Now if you'd rather have heavily subsidized health care, well, that may work.

And do we not provide basic emergency care free already? Food stamps is a bad arguement, and you know it.

Yes, let's wait until they are suffering from EMERGENCY before we treat them!!

Paying for basic preventative care would prevent a lot of emergency care and would allow people to go to doctors to find things early on.

And food stamps is actually a very good argument; you just can't counter it.

Who said anything about the poor? Oh, you think it is just the poor in dire financial straights because of poor financial choices? Interesting...

The poor aren't affected here? That's a new one.

The "choices" argument has been used to try to deny poor people welfare in the past.

If they have the means to suppor themselves, and willingly choose not to, yeah.

So, are you saying we shouldn't pay welfare. Or we should pay welfare to those who are below a poverty line? Why? Because they are in need of it and it seems unfair to deny it to them?