-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Salaries
- Thread starter NotMSRP
- Start date
- Status
fennec fox
ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
I'd rather have health care.
BigGreenMat
Member
I make 31k a year and have 25% of that taken away in various taxes right off the bat and then another 10% probably take in extra taxes that are thrown on everything else in the world.
KingV said:I get the feeling that the two of you may be unemployed.
edit: just kidding, btw.
I just think that a nation's foremost goal should be to keep its people healthy as much as reasonably possible. I mean we spend how many billions on the military to "protect" us from outside threats that aren't even there (or fabricated) 99% of the time, but we let people with chronic illnesses like diabetes and even cancer slip through the cracks of the terrible system that is in place now just because they can't get health insurance. Of course, if we were to, say, allocate money from million dollar bolts on a missile to some poor person's chemotherapy, then both the weapons contractors and the health insurance industry would suffer, and I can't think of a single prominent politician now who would have the balls to make something like that happen.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
A woman that asks how much you make has no class. Sh!t, anyone that asks that has no class unless they're tactful about it.
EarthStormFire
Banned
AstroLad said:
A hospital can't refuse to treat someone is dying. If the person dies the hospital is fined millions of dollars. A hospital must treat everyone in an emergency. You talk about cancer, well look at Canada and dialysis. In Canada a 80 year old person can't receive dialysis. The government expects them to just die. In the united states any 90 year old who needs dialysis will get it. There are age limits for dialysis in Canada. These limits don't exist in the United States. In the United States our insurance companies will cover many things that they Canadian government refuses to cover. For example you CAN'T get a PET scan in Canada, yet all major insurance companies in the US cover PET scans. PET scans save lives. And the MRI situation in Canada is so bad that some providence don't even have a MRI machine. I rather have private insurance over substandard "free" health insurance.
EarthStormFire said:
And yet I wasn't saying we should just copy Canada's system, was I? I don't think I even mentioned Canada once. Anyway, I wasn't trying to get into some debate about socialized v. commercialized medicine, just trying to get across the underlying principles behind my belief that we should do more for our sick and dying. And if you think it's so easy to get necessary treatment, I strongly suggest you attend some social security hearings one day.
AstroLad said:
Water is, and housing too. Let's socialize that and make it "free" first. I never realized that the old saying of "food, water, shelter", suddenly metamorphosed into "food, healthcare, shelter". Socialized medicine is unjust and unmanageable, and is not to be defended. In France, you have neurosurgeons making the same as postal employees-- is that truly just? Is it fair? (about 85% of them went on strike recently, btw) This is to say nothing of the inherent problems of socialized medicine (many of which all the larger socialized nations such as Canada, Britian, and France are starting to realize now). Not to toot my own horn (because it's really not too difficult to conceive of or anything), but I feel that a system such as the one I mentioned in this thread is more sensible for all involved parties as well as more in keeping with the general meritocratic, capitalistic ethos of our culture. Just my two cents. Those who can afford to pay should, within their means, and those who truly cannot shouldn't have to. You cannot have a "right" which is dependent upon another's services. You have a right to free speech and free press, but you are not entitled to have a "free" national newspaper printed in your name, with the workers manning the presses for "free". You are entitled to freedom of assembly, but not in a privately owned facility at the owner's expense. You're going to be a lawyer, right Astrolad? Well, certainly the right to representation is more fundamental than health care, seeing as how the founding fathers actually explicitly codified its role in our judicial system as well as people's right to have access to it. So I assume that you're going to do nothing but pro-bono work, or work for a mere pittance? Say "but they have free attorneys provided for such instances" and entirely miss the point; they have "free" health care also-- they're called "clinics". This is not to attack you, I'm just trying to make a point.
But to those who are hell-bent on instituting socialized medicine in this country, I say that you will have my full support, so long as you first do all of the following:
Socialized medicine must be subsidized in ways which I know will never be implemented (closing corporate tax loopholes such as offshore banking and funneling those funds to medical programs, an absolute income cap at $50M per annum with anything beyond that fed back into the system etc.), and so I cannot truly support it; for if these measures are not implemented, and a hasty, ill-conceived model is foisted upon us, the only people who suffer will be physicians, who under no circumstance should be making $80K/year. I do not philosophically agree with the assertion that a physician-- even a primary care doc-- should not be making at least $150K after their 8+ years of rigorous academic and clinical training, super-specialized knowledge, and noble dedication. And while you may insist that nobody is saying that they should make $80K, I submit that such a fate would be inevitable under a socialized system unless strict care was taken in insuring its viability. Hell, some pediatricians and FP's make $90-100K right now, nevermind if we socialized things.
If we as a nation desire socialized medicine along with social justice (in my personal moral schema, justice trumps mercy every time, as I feel mercy to be subsumed under justice, but room can be made for both ), we should collect the estimated $35-75B (yes, "billion" with a "b") we lose each year in corporate and personal taxes due to offshore banking, compel the astounding 95% of US-based and 50% of foreign-based corporations who incredibly pay no income tax at all on their earnings (wouldn't we be in jail if we did that?) to finally do so, and, lastly, actively seek out and deport all illegal immigrants who would be a drain on the system (by not being part of the tax base) and commit massive fraud (at least here in NY; I assure you I'm no xenophobe, to preempt any comments in that regard). In addition, we need to reign in our out-of-control medical malpractice system, which would cut physicians' ludicrous malpractice premiums (in theory), resulting in more take-home pay. Some specialists such as ob/gyn are paying upwards of $130K/year for malpractice insurance in some states, and that is an absolutely indefensible state of affairs. Take a bit from our military budget (several billion dollars is still just "a bit" when considered against that budget), and voila.
All such steps and more would be necessary if one is to institute both a fair and sane nationalized healthcare system. Can you see even a single one of those things happening? Because I sure can't. And it's for that very reason that I cannot in good faith support truly socialized medicine, though I would definitely be more amenable to a system wherein those who can afford to pay for services do, up to a pre-set deductible based upon income bracket, as mentioned in the thread I linked to.
And please realize that this wasn't necessarily all directed at you, Astrolad; I just get tired of people spouting nonsense about how hunky-dory everything would be if we just socialized our lives away. Seek social justice first is what I say, and with that will come many good fruits.
Phoenix
Member
Loki said:Water is, and housing too. ...
And please realize that this wasn't necessarily all directed at you, Astrolad; I just get tired of people spouting nonsense about how hunky-dory everything would be if we just socialized our lives away. Seek social justice first is what I say, and with that will come many good fruits.
You really should have done this in another thread. That's like a 50 page topic right there
AstroLad said:
And yet our founding fathers and others involved in the creation of this country never once hinted at as much; in fact, they did quite the opposite: they explicitly codified all aspects of our judicial system and asserted that people have a right to adequate representation. Again, you cannot point to public defenders or pro-bono attorneys, because the health care field has an equivalent service, which are "clinics". Say that clinics often don't provide the best care and sink further into the quicksand, as I can just as easily point out the acquittal rates for private versus public defense attorneys, as well as the length of sentences which each manages to get for their clients.
The whole notion is a popular (and untenable) bias of our day. As I mentioned, you cannot have a "right" to something which is obtained at another's expense and toil. No other fundamental right you can think of operates in such a manner or tolerates such excesses. This is not to say that the system should not be fixed, because if you read the thread that I linked to, you'll see that I feel that those who can pay should (up to a pre-set deductible), and those who truly cannot afford to should not be denied care due to that fact.
If a socialized medical system is ever enacted, you can bet your ass that it won't be just for either the providers OR the patients. Do some reading on the issues bubbling up in countries with socialized systems today. Nothing our government does is EVER done correctly, and I feel that "correctly" would be to first implement all the other reforms I mentioned above. If you desire social justice for the greatest number, then you must first bring society to a sensible center, at the very least; then you can try to create a more equitable system. As it stands, however, society is out of control.
Phoenix said:You really should have done this in another thread. That's like a 50 page topic right there
Haha... yes. That is exactly what I was trying to avoid. As interesting as the discussion would be, it would also require much more time and effort than I have right now.
fennec fox
ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
Canada? Whatever. All I know is that it's way too hard to afford health insurance as a freelancer.
You really should have done this in another thread. That's like a 50 page topic right there
I know; you're right. It's just that I can't stand to see all the socialized healthcare talk that emanates from too many sectors of society, and so feel compelled to offer a counterpoint for anyone who may read such things and be swayed by them into supporting an unjust system.
AstroLad said:
So you're being evasive, eh?
I understand, though; this is the last day I'll be making substantial posts on the forum anyhow, since classes began today. I just feel that if we desire social justice (yes, I keep using that term, but my vocabulary is, as you know, limited ), we should seek out a more sensible system, not one which just shifts the injustice and the burden elsewhere (though patients AND practitioners would suffer under socialized medicine, not only physicians). If the uninsured are a problem, then let's address that. If the cost of health care is a problem, then let's address that. Attack problems individually as far as possible, while keeping an eye towards the greater good (i.e., you guessed it-- "social justice" ). There is no need for these earth-shaking, paradigmatic shifts when more modest and sensible measures would suffice. I tend to feel at times that socialized medicine is a mere trojan horse-- yet another emissary of an encroaching welfare state that has shackled the minds of people and molded their expectations into something grotesque and unreasonable. But maybe that's just me. Did you at least read the plan I mentioned in the thread I linked to? I feel that it is more fair and sensible for all involved parties-- both in terms of its costs and the quality of care that would be provided under it. After all, when people don't have money to eat, we don't direct them to the nearest 4-star establishment and order the chefs there to cook them a meal, do we? No, we direct them to a soup kitchen or a shelter where they'll fill their gullet, albeit more modestly. And certainly you would not argue that sustenance is less important than healthcare. My point is to strive for fairness and good sense as far as is possible, and not be hasty with what we acquiesce to simply because it "looks good on paper". It's anything but. But if it must be done, make it so for all sectors, I say-- after all, we're equitable and charitable people, are we not? Lawyers, mutual fund managers (surely all are entitled to adequate retirement funds), master chefs, renowned architects to build your home (after all, shelter is more basic than healthcare as well)....all serving the needs of the many for "free". Yes, yes-- that makes perfect sense.
It also sounds like something else to my ears, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Warm Machine
Member
Yeah, in the US they have to treat you and if you are lucky enough to live they slap you with a 5 to 6 figure bill for it.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
Loki said:
You have to ask now what is their definition of "people" or "person". Not everything said by the founding fathers was correct. Nor did they have the foresight to know what would be issues some 2 centruies after their deaths. That being said, in general a healthy society is a more productive society. The moneies that would be spent in health care would be made up in productivity.
Slick_Advanced said:
I don't disagree with your conclusion (re: increased productivity). My point was that you simply cannot have a "right" which can only see its expression through the work of others-- it's inherently doomed to failure, nor can it be logically defended (and isn't witnessed in any other sphere of life, even where rights and issues of greater import are concerned-- nourishment, shelter, water and utilities, nevermind free speech, press etc.).
If we desire a healthy society, I would certainly agree that access to medical care for all citizens is imperative; I also feel, however, that to totally discard our capitalistic ethic in one sphere while singing its praises in all others is, shall we say, an instance of "selective reasoning".
In case you missed it, I proposed what I feel to be a sensible health care plan in MAF's "broken ribs" thread, seen here . Further, if we truly desire a healthy society, one could quite convincingly argue that mere temperance and an eschewal of vice and unhealthy habits (things which would necessarily lead to large decreases in obesity, STD's, cancer, smoking-related ailments etc.-- our most pressing health concerns in terms of both mortality and expenditures) would also engender similar results, and at nobody's expense. In situations such as this where you would have two (or more) competing paths for arriving at similarly beneficial states, I always say to take the one that is both minimally invasive of others' rights as well as more logically sound; in this case, that would mean encouraging healthy lifestyle choices as opposed to a wholesale renovation of our medical system-- particularly when more sensible, logical, and limited measures would suffice (as seen in the thread I linked to).Hope that made sense.
- Status