HalfMastLoon:
<Sigh>
What a joke...but I'll indulge you anyway.
Yes, they could have affored 20k, but why should they have to pay more to "sustain" me, as you so rudely stated? To pay 20k+ on medical expenses IS a burden, no matter how you slice it. Don't give me the, "could have, easily can" garbage. You're not factoring in life with rhetoric like that. What if something tragic were to happen to my younger brother, or hell, any of my immediate family members during the time they pay 20K+ a year in medical expenses just to "sustain me." Imagine more costs incurred on top of that, and then it suddenly does becomes a problem, or like I said, a BURDEN.
Yeah, if your family somehow managed to incur an additional...oh...
$90K in unforseen medical expenses during the same year they paid out a paltry (for them) $20K for
your condition, then I could see it becoming a "problem". But since the chances of that happening are next to nil (a month's hospitalization will only run you ~$30-40K, not $90K), you're really reaching.
You say that I'm not factoring in "life" when I say that your family-- who earns in excess of $230K per year-- should have to contribute the relatively meager sum of $20K to help pay for
the medical expenses you've incurred and the services you've availed yourself of. Doctors shouldn't have to be charity workers, and I'm sure your father (obviously a keen "businessman") would balk at the notion of being paid a mere fraction of what he's charging for his services despite the other person's
clear ability to pay. But wait-- that's your father, and these are doctors. I forgot that they're not entitled to similar treatment; your father is special, and I'm sure he put in years and years of arduous work before he was making big bucks and that his job is as difficult or as specialized as a physician's is. Sure. But he's special...he's entitled to better treatment because he's Lonestar's father. These are the sorts of arguments implicit in your bogus rationale, whether you'd care to admit it or not; your thinly veiled sense of entitlement and silver-spoon mentality shines through quite clearly to those with eyes.
Yes, Lonestar, I'm not factoring in "life" when I assert that your affluent family should have to contribute $20K out of pocket to your medical expenses. I'm not factoring in a "life" that includes frequent dinners at fancy restaurants, a life that includes a sprawling villa for their cherished son, a life that includes
a $30K fucking allowance-- listen to what you're saying, man. And you really think that anybody of good sense is going to agree with you?
Obviously, if some tragedy befell another member of your family, then that would be a mitigating circumstance which would have to be addressed; you'd likely be relieved of some of that $20K "burden" if such a (rare) thing ever happened. Nobody is suggesting that your family pay out half their ($230K+) income to cover multiple medical expenses for different members of your family. No. That would be foolish; what I state here
is not foolish, however-- in fact, it strikes me as the most sensible and equitable way to do things for
all involved parties. As it stands now, sure-- you're making a killing. But what of the doctors who treat you? Sure, they're not poor either, but are they being paid commensurate with their abilities? Certainly not. If you propose that they
are, then I'd propose that your father is being
grossly overpaid and should henceforth halve his salary for the greater good. Are they receiving the fee that they charge for their services? Certainly not, although
in no other field is this considered acceptable. You've yet to clarify precisely
why the medical world should be so vastly different from every other area of life in this regard. Why, because it's your life at stake? Yes, but people
still have to do the job, and that job is prohibitively difficult to begin with; you're depriving people of their just rewards (on top of the
obvious reward of seeing a closet ingrate such as yourself convalesce nicely while he entertains the implicit notion that these people do not deserve to be compensated in a manner similar to 99% of the rest of society).
So, no, all else being normal, $20K out of pocket each year for your family can
in no universe be considered a "burden", unless your $30K allowance and other niceties are likewise considered "burdens". Spare me the misdirection, please. You're a silver-spoon, spoiled brat (with an attitude, to boot; anybody can attest to your abrasive posting style) who believes that the world owes his something-- no, wait, not the
whole world, just the physicians. They are a category apart, for some as yet undisclosed and unjustified reason.
Yes, to be honest, I think it's perfectly fine. Sure, they can afford to pay the whole bill, but why should they have TO just because their check nets them more income? Whats makes my disease so much more important than families with low income that my parents have to take the money they work hard for and earn and use it cover the cost of bills?
Oh yeah, I forgot, my parents make more money. They should have to pay more to "sustain" me. What a ridiculous fucking idea.
It's not "just because they make more money", you tard, it's because
they can legitimately afford to pay for a greater percentage of the expenses incurred. What
would be unjust and immoral (and what you are trying to spin this as, unsuccessfully) is if physicians and hospitals charged one price for the rich and a lower one for the poor.
That's not fair. But after a fee has been set for a service, and you've implicitly agreed to that fee because you've availed yourself of that service, then you should be made to honor that agreement
to the best of your abilities, within reason. For a family who earns $230K, I feel that $20-25K is a reasonable amount to pay. You don't obviously, because, well, you're the one with the $230K. I wouldn't expect better from a silver-spoon, prattling child such as yourself. It might mean that daddy couldn't put away $60K in his mutual fund this year, or might <gasp> have to cut little Lonestar's allowance from $30K to $15K. HORROR OF HORRORS! We can't have that happening
just to pay what he owes by way of barter. No...that would be unacceptable.
You're no better than some corporate crook who cooks the books to make another million for himself, believe it or not. Your sense of propriety and social justice are irredeemably fucked up. They have places for people who cannot afford health care, and they're called clinics. But what of those who
can afford their care, but choose to abuse the system (I'm not saying you've done anything illegal-- it
is the system, after all) in order to absolve themselves of all responsibility to meet their basic social contract obligations. Service rendered, service paid for. You paid $1000 on $100K of expenses? Your mother probably has dresses that cost more than that. I know your father definitely has the suits. Why do I care if they do? Well, I
don't care, really, except when they refuse to pay sufficiently for services provided. And make no mistake about it, your attitude illustrates that, even if it were the law that folks in your position would have to kick in $20K for their expenses, your family still would bristle at the notion, feeling themselves to be entitled. Sane parents who value social justice don't raise an insane, unjust son. Your myopic selfishness heeds not the strictures of common sense or commensuration.
And just so you know, I'd be saying
the same exact thing if your parents decided to procure the legal services of a skilled attorney, or commissioned a top-flight architect to build them a house, and then balked at paying their fees, all the while enjoying a cushy life in the lap of luxury. It's the
same exact thing, and the
same exact breach of proper conduct (ethically-speaking, not legally, given the current "system"), unless you can educate me as to why they're not, and why the notion of fee-for-service (again,
within reason) persisted in the healthcare field until the last 10-15 years. Hint: if your answer doesn't contain the words "feelings of entitlement", you're aiming your arrow at the wrong tree. Sure, you can insist that there are free legal services available (though nobody will build a house for free, or for 1% of their asking price, I can assure you), but there are also free care clinics all over the place. Use them if you're that intent on not paying anywhere NEAR your due. Oh, what's that? The quality of care isn't as good there? No shit, sherlock-- that's because no self-respecting, sane person dedicates 7-10 of the best years of their life to rigorous training and incurs $200K in debt to be working for free. Your father would likely sooner cut off his left nut than do such a thing, yet this is
precisely the mindset you and yours have vis-a-vis doctors. The quality of the legal counsel available for "free" is similarly shoddy, and if you manage to get a house built for free, you'd better not stay in it for long, because it's destined to crumble like a house of cards in short order. Agree to pay a restauranteur 1% of his asking price for an entree and you had better have a cast-iron stomach or not be in the mood for more than a modicum of food, because he'll either laugh at you or ensure that your meal gives you salmonella or mad cow disease. So, as you see, all these situations are the same, whether you'd care to admit it or not. You merely
saying that they're not doesn't make it so.
I am no different than the kid who has the terminal illness from the family who makes only 30k a year. And just as I'm sure the poor kid and family wouldn't want to be treated and viewed differently, neither do I or my family just because they happen to make a lot of money. We shouldn't be asked to foot the bill based on a income bracket. That's discrimination, and if discrimination doesn't fly anywhere else, why should it be fly here?
LOL..."discrimination" he says. Oh, this is rich-- invoking the rhetoric of civil rights in order to cover for blatant greed and entitlement. Are you and your family eligible for food stamps, Lonestar? How about welfare? AFDC? And why do you think that is the case, then? Is
that discrimination also? If not, then why not? I'll be waiting. Good luck digging yourself out of that one.
Again, why should you or a poor kid be treated differently if you both go to a 4-star restaurant? Why should you be treated differently if you wanted to enlist the aid of a nonpareil attorney? Why should you be treated different when you both have to pay the same water and utility bills (you can afford to pay, he cannot and thus his water and utilities are cut-- different treatment by the companies, no?) Why should you be treated differently if you both want a new BMW? Why should you be treated differently if you both want a Hugo Boss suit? Say "there are cheaper alternatives available for many of these things" and
entirely miss the point (which would be unsurprising, given your penchant for such). There are also free clinics, and many physicians do low-cost or free work on the weekends of their own accord etc. The situation you defend is the
exact equivalent of making
all restaurants into a Burger King, of making
all fine clothing into cheap knock-offs rather than garments of impeccable quality. Instead of allowing those physicians who desire to do pro-bono work, either full-time or on the side, on a charity basis, you're condemning them all to the same fate, not allowing any of them to earn livings proporationate with their expertise. I don't know about you, but that sounds an awful lot like communism to my ears (minus the loss of property, obviously)-- allowing no man to rise above another. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you won't be-- you are, after all, possessed of a vacant mind.
Can you justify your beliefs, Loki? Can you honestly tell me these are YOUR beliefs? The restuarant analogy is fucking stupid
Yes, I can, and yes, they are. And no, it's not. Thanks for playing, though.
Watch how easy this is:
Lonestar is "fucking stupid". See? Simple. Doesn't make it so without some proof; luckily for us, ample evidence of your fatuity is on display in this very thread, so there's no need for me to create some kind of "Stupidity Syllogism" which would undoubtedly implicate you in a most unfortunate manner.
If they're not
my beliefs, then whose are they? What, pray tell, are you suggesting? I can say with absolute certainty that I've spent more time in my life pondering what is fair, and the nature of justice, than you have. Sure, go right ahead and say that that's pretentious of me (because surely such a comment is on the way) even though it's merely a statement of fact; one which doesn't
necessarily make my conclusions towards those ends correct, but one which certainly speaks against your attempt to make like I somehow copped another person's beliefs and ran with them.
So I ask
you, Gnomecar, are these really YOUR beliefs that we have in front of us? Or are they merely a rank regurgitation of the prevailing climate of entitlement and ubiquitous lack of reason in our present day? You've been spoon-fed by MTV and other vacuous sources of entertainment and "education" your entire life, and yet you seek to tell me that my conceptions of propriety are somehow malformed? Sorry, but no.
How the fuck is he suddenly stricken with "selective amnesia"? I doubt he opens up the bills, looks at the cost, and goes, "Fuck, I've made lots of money being successful in this great, free market -- but damn, it's bill time. I guess I'll just forget about all that and dutifully pay before my conscious weighs down on me and I realize that I should be paying more than an average family just so I can "sustain" my son."
What I imagine happens, though, is this. He gets the bill, looks at the costs, opens up his checkbook like so many times before, and sends the check off to its merry way. Him making "bones" in the free-market probably never enters the thought equation. But, hey, you're Loki, and you're the king of reading minds and deciphering what's right and wrong.
It's implicit in your rationale, and likely in his-- though I will admit that I cannot judge him too harshly in this regard unless I know his personal beliefs re: these matters. If he just pays the $1000 out of $100K because that's all that's asked of him, and doesn't consider it any more deeply than that, then that's fine. But if he houses even a
scintilla of the absolutely indefensible rationale which you've presented herein, then he is likewise egregiously wrong. There really are no two ways about this.
And yes, I'm quite good at "deciphering right from wrong", though the least you could do is make it somewhat challenging by providing a cogent, persuasive argument. Make me work for my "rep", Lonestar. Nobody of good sense is in here coming to your aid, and that is because nobody of good sense-- liberal or conservative-- would argue against the notion of
those who can afford to pay for a service doing so, within reason. And $20K is definitely "within reason" for a family earning upwards of $230K per annum. But don't worry-- enjoy your $30K yearly
allowance while the insurance company rapes the hospital by paying them $20-40K for $100K worth of services. Oh, excuse, me, I almost forgot-- that's on top of your hefty $1000 personal payment. What a terrible oversight on my part. <rolleyes>
Fuck you, you arrogant piece of shit. I thumb my nose at the people "allow" me to continue my existance? I thumb my nose at the people who "sustain" me? I live in San Antonio for one reason, and that reason is the doctors. I've been surrounded by the same group of health care professionals for the past 7 years. They've seen my ups, the middles, and my downs. How dare you suggest that I have anything but respect and care for these people. And how dare you suggest that THEY keep me alive. I keep myself alive, asshole. It's a two way road, and they've got one road covered very well.
These are people who, when I'm in the hospital, will sit in my room for hours with me and watch movies, play games, or just shoot the shit. Why? Because they're not just simply my doctors, they're my friends. I worry about them when they're deported to Iraq or Afghanistan, and they know quite well of how much I appreciate them and their work. In a nutshell, they're amazing.
<hold on, lemme wipe the tear from my eye>
And yet you implicitly
have no respect for them, in the context of social justice, based upon your absurd and indefensible statements. My point stands. Fuck
you, you braindead douche. Cogent reasoning is clearly beyond your ken.
Allow me to speak to a larger, related point:
Not to delve into the realm of partisan politics, because I honestly couldn't give a shit less about either party, but I feel that Lonestar's obstinate diatribe illustrates the profound culture of entitlement we've spawned in this country to the exclusion of reason and good sense. Far-left democrats are always crying about healthcare, and, to that end, I feel that such a plan as I proposed earlier would alleviate a lot of the injustices and wrongs inherent in the present system (e.g., access to care, affordability for those of lesser means etc.) which democrats typically seize upon as a rationale for implementing socialized medicine. They buttress their arguments with such facts as "44 million Americans not having health insurance", ever-blind to the fact that, firstly, a great many of these people
can actually afford coverage if they so desired-- they'd just
rather have that big screen TV, or nicotine/alcohol habit, or new $120 shoes every month, or multiple cell phones, or broadband, or $50K cars, or any one of a number of
luxuries. Go talk to any emergency room physician in a major city and they will provide you with hours and hours of anecdotal evidence of people possessing such luxuries claiming to have no medical insurance when they come into the ER.
Now, if we (democrats, that is) are to assert that healthcare is a "right", then it must
also be a "necessity" (the notion of the former is bound to the latter, though not in converse; I've illustrated such hypocrisy in this very thread re: water, food, shelter, and utilities). And in my mind, "necessity" trumps "luxuries" any day of the week. So how, then, can it be justified that people should not only be
allowed to spend on luxuries before necessities, but that it should be
condoned by society and made the law of the land via sweeping socialized reform? A system such as the one I proposed would still address the issues of those who have legitimately fallen on hard times and cannot afford to pay for whatever reasons; it would also, as I mentioned, be more in line with the general ethos of our society (though that capitalistic, meritocratic ethic and sentiment is slowly being eroded by the encroachment of our entitlement culture, but I digress). And yet in this very thread we have a clear example NOT of an
inability to pay for services rendered, but merely an unsubstantiated desire
not to. If our guiding maxim is to be humanity, then socializing things would simply shift the inhumanity to a different sector (the providers, mostly) rather than adequately address it for
everyone and bring about a just and sensible state of affairs. And those feelings of humanity, and compassion, are what largely inform our desire to aid the indigent; if we desire to do that, then why not simply enact a plan similar to the one which I proposed?
How would socializing medicine undo that sort of poisonous entitlement mentality (see: Lonestar) that hangs like a miasma in the collective air of our culture? Indeed, such a skewed sense of entitlement and lack of good sense is not to be countenanced even in the personal sphere-- much less should it be influencing policy by its clamorous (yet unreasonable) cries. I posit that the injustices which would result from socializing medicine (for both practitioners AND patients, though I've only spoken to the practitioner side here, since a discussion of the failings of socialized medicine would've necessitated another 20 pages of text
) would far outweigh whatever social justice you think you'd be achieving for the general populace. For the true benefit of universal care is that nobody would be
denied care, regardless of an inability to pay; yet the same would be true under my more modest and reasonable system, would it not? This is to say nothing of the bungling bureaucracy which is sure to result whenever the gov't gets it paws into ANYTHING, much less something as broad as the medical field (my plan would have far less bureaucracy, too
). Why not strive for the good of socialized medicine
without the bad, then? Why not seek alternative solutions which would mitigate the deleterious effects and injustices which inhere in a socialized system? The fact that such searching for ideas is
not being done only adds to my (perhaps irrational) suspicion that socialized medicine is a mere trojan horse of the welfare state, which will do more harm than good, and that this much is known to those who would institute it, yet they are silent as to its evils.
If any of the more lucid democrats on the board care to speak to these issues, then I'll at least read it (and appreciate it), though I can't promise that I'll comment on it-- I've already dallied far too long here.
I won't be making any further posts in this thread regardless.
EDIT: And I also apologize for my tone to you, Lonestar, but I didn't really appreciate your "What do you think of Loki?" poll at OA, with the choices consisting of:
A) A condescending prick
B) An asshole
C) A dick who talks behind people's backs
(or something along these lines)
So...yeah.
