Healthcare Reform Thread II

[KrazyHorse]

The most obvious truth in the world is that there is no monetary value to human life.

Certainly not to yours.

[Elok]

For someone who admits that he doesn't know much about economics your seem sure about how much debt the US can handle.

Well, I know that if you pile weight on a column continuously, it will eventually fail. We are currently piling on weight. When it will fail is a complicated question depending on the health of the economy, foreign confidence in the US and probably eighty other things. That it will fail is beyond doubt. And when it fails, very few, if any, government programs will endure. STOP ADDING WEIGHT!

Your position that people need to suffer so that the deficit doesn't increase is wrong to me. Your position that even more people need to suffer so that the budget will be balanced is quite extreme to me. Where does your desire for suffering stop? Do you want even more people to suffer so that the debt is paid off?

It's irrelevant what I want, of course, since our politicians don't dare cut a thing. I have no "desire for suffering," so drop the stupid melodrama. I just want us to stop spending money that doesn't exist. We cannot keep borrowing forever. If any citizen behaved in the way the government does, he would be considered grotesquely irresponsible, and would have gone bankrupt fifteen times by now. The government has greater influence, more borrowing power, but it won't last forever.

Cuts would need to be made to a bunch of programs to balance the budget. We'd need to trim back normal military spending substantially (which xenophobia prevents), pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan now (we're too proud to let the inevitable happen sooner rather than later), gut Medicare and Social Security (geezers vote, so it's a no-go), probably a bunch of other, lesser snips. Mostly the military and entitlements are dragging us down, but this stupid "reform" is just adding one more thing that will be politically impossible to cut once it gets established. For the first time ever, I'm rooting hard for the Roberts court to flush this turd.

[Elok]

You think insurance companies are going to tank with a mandate to buy insurance?

It's a strong possibility. I don't know the ins and outs enough to be sure, of course, but I know full well that certain kinds of ailments are catastrophically expensive. My brother is in the Army and he's going career just because no other insurance will pay for his wife's asthma (I named asthma for that reason).

It's just a matter of how many people with bad conditions sign up with any one company. People are required to buy insurance, but not from any given company. Sick people signing on raise costs. Healthy people aren't going to pay extra to stay healthy, they'll go for the cheapest option available, exploit a loophole and buy catastrophic if they can. Lots of sick folks with no healthy ones carrying the weight, the company will go down like the heavy end of a see-saw.

[Drake Tungsten]

However, the most fundamental way in which insurance as currently used in the US affects health care costs is simply that out-of-pocket contributions are too LOW relative to insurance payments.

QFT

The most obvious truth in the world is that there is no monetary value to human life.

Of course there is, you moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

I wonder how much of our increased costs have to do with the obesity epidemic?

And I wonder if fat people might have more incentive to lose weight if they had to bear more of the cost for their healthcare.

[Hauldren Collider]

The most obvious truth in the world is that there is no monetary value to human life.

If an expenditure of money saves just one life, is it worth it? Answer: An obvious no. What if you could spend that money saving two lives instead of one? Clearly saving two lives is a much better expenditure than saving one life, and this IMPLIES that there is a value to human life.

[Kidlicious]

Well, I know that if you pile weight on a column continuously, it will eventually fail. We are currently piling on weight. When it will fail is a complicated question depending on the health of the economy, foreign confidence in the US and probably eighty other things. That it will fail is beyond doubt. And when it fails, very few, if any, government programs will endure. STOP ADDING WEIGHT!

So what you are saying is that we shouldn't owe 1 cent in national debt, and if we do we should pay that penny no matter how many people suffer and die as a result. That's what should be gathered from your logic here.

It's irrelevant what I want, of course, since our politicians don't dare cut a thing. I have no "desire for suffering," so drop the stupid melodrama. I just want us to stop spending money that doesn't exist.

Who said you desire suffering? I said that you desire to pay off the debt no matter how much suffering it caused. It doesn't seem like you are denying that that is what you support here. All your doing is accusing me of melodrama. Does suffering matter to you? If so then why don't you consider it?

We cannot keep borrowing forever.

I didn't claim that we could. What you seem to be saying is that we can't borrow at all.

Cuts would need to be made to a bunch of programs to balance the budget. We'd need to trim back normal military spending substantially (which xenophobia prevents), pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan now (we're too proud to let the inevitable happen sooner rather than later), gut Medicare and Social Security (geezers vote, so it's a no-go), probably a bunch of other, lesser snips. Mostly the military and entitlements are dragging us down, but this stupid "reform" is just adding one more thing that will be politically impossible to cut once it gets established. For the first time ever, I'm rooting hard for the Roberts court to flush this turd.

And it shouldn't be cut out. Cuts shouldn't be made which cause suffering. Cut the rest of the **** and raise taxes.

[Kidlicious]

It's a strong possibility. I don't know the ins and outs enough to be sure, of course, but I know full well that certain kinds of ailments are catastrophically expensive. My brother is in the Army and he's going career just because no other insurance will pay for his wife's asthma (I named asthma for that reason).

It's just a matter of how many people with bad conditions sign up with any one company. People are required to buy insurance, but not from any given company. Sick people signing on raise costs. Healthy people aren't going to pay extra to stay healthy, they'll go for the cheapest option available, exploit a loophole and buy catastrophic if they can. Lots of sick folks with no healthy ones carrying the weight, the company will go down like the heavy end of a see-saw.

Look this is the wealthiest nation on earth. The government is not going to let that happen, not even the republicans.

[Kidlicious]

Of course there is, you moron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

That's stupid, and the last time I'll waste my time with one of your links.

[Kidlicious]

If an expenditure of money saves just one life, is it worth it? Answer: An obvious no. What if you could spend that money saving two lives instead of one? Clearly saving two lives is a much better expenditure than saving one life, and this IMPLIES that there is a value to human life.

No it isn't. All you've proved is that two lives are better than one.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's stupid, and the last time I'll waste my time with one of your links.

[Kidlicious]

What you were trying to say is that a life is worth a certain about of big screen TVs. It's not. You have the same level of understanding that you friend does. No one is saying that more lives aren't worth more than less lives.

[giblets]

What you were trying to say is that a life is worth a certain about of big screen TVs. It's not.

In your opinion, should 100% of society's resources go towards prolonging life? Or does quality of life also matter?

[Kidlicious]

In your opinion, should 100% of society's resources go towards prolonging life? Or does quality of life also matter?

First, my idea of quality of life is probably different from yours, in that it might not have to do with material prosperity as much as yours does.

That said, due to my religious beliefs human life is sacred to me.

[giblets]

First, my idea of quality of life is probably different from yours, in that it might not have to do with material prosperity as much as yours does.

That said, due to my religious beliefs I believe that human life is sacred.

So in your view prolonging life for a second would, hypothetically, outrank a big screen TV.

[Kidlicious]

So in your view prolonging life for a second would, hypothetically, outrank a big screen TV.

Yes, it would be a sin to value a material object like that more than life.