flippymittens
Banned
No idea, but I am not too educated on the issue. Why would free healthcare to those who can not afford medical visits be a bad thing?
What are the arguments against public healthcare in the US?
- Thread starter Dali
- Start date
- Status
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
It's really hard to sue the government tho...
Doesn't say what kind of MRI.
For all we know (since most MRIs are not medically necessary - which BTW, is why in some countries there is a waiting period - those who really NEED them, get them, those who just feel like having one because they sprained their ankle - they can wait despite their sense of entitlement) - they could be doing quick and dirty MRIs just to make people happy. I may be wrong - no idea. But they must be subsidizing cost somehow - look up what a yearly electricity bill for an MRI machine is.
Also, high prices for MRIs in the US is definitely not a result of free market - quite otherwise.
Telosfortelos
Advocate for the People
Hey Karsticles, I'm not sure if you're still checking this thread, but I'd like to better understand your point of view. I mean this genuinely, and while my contrary viewpoint might lead to questions that sound more pointed or aggressive than warranted, my primary intention really is to better understand.
I honestly appreciate you jumping into the neogaf fire, but your posts have left many (myself included) unsure about which "individual liberties" you think are infringed upon by guaranteed health care. Moreover, you've mentioned a number of times that expanding government power is often, but not always, an extreme negative (government regulation of financial institutions is okay, your government job is okay, etc), but you haven't fully conveyed what sorts of government powers are okay and which are unacceptable, i.e., where your bright-line is. I'd like to better illuminate the arguments on your side by avoiding broad terms like liberty and instead describing what we mean by it. Perhaps we can even agree about certain types of health care regulation. I hope you'll excuse the barrage of questions. I'll start with basic ones that you'll likely think you've already answered, but I think it's necessary to have it all in one place in order to fully understand your position, which I have no doubt is based in a desire to maximize liberty.
Do you support guaranteed healthcare for children? E.g., if a 7 year old develops leukemia, do you think they should be guaranteed service regardless of a guardian's ability to pay?
Do you support insurance companies' rights to deny coverage or charge unaffordable prices to those with pre-existing conditions? What if someone lives in a high-carcinogen environment and develops recurring cancers? Should that person have no access or capped access to health care payment if they weren't extremely wealthy before diagnosis?
Since 1986, hospitals are required to treat anyone seeking emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay. Do you oppose this regulation, and if not, which explicit government powers does it create that you find objectionable, why, and how do they effect citizenry at large. If you support the policy, which government enforcement powers created by the Affordable Care Act do you find distinct from those created in '86, why, and how do they affect you differently?
An extreme example: imagine a new virus that only affects children under the age of 10, spreads quickly over the air, and kills greater than 95% of affected children. Imagine we can only produce enough vaccines for 50% of the population. Do you believe they should be distributed randomly, perhaps by focusing on areas with the highest infection rates, or do you believe the market should solely dictate rationing? I.e., do you believe billionaires should be able to guarantee their children receive the vaccine and poor, uninsured children should only have access when those that can afford it get first dibs? Should government play any role at all during such a catastrophe? If not, do you think private enterprise can be as effective at dealing with national or international health care emergencies?
Does it just come down to the state gaining more knowledge about its citizenry that might be used for future illicit operations? If you could somehow (without conceding that such a policy is possible in reality) know that the information could not be abused by the government, would you still oppose the regulation, and if so on what grounds?
My support for ACA isn't based on personal need. I can afford high quality health care, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. I support it because some percentage of the 300 million US citizens will unexpected become ill, lose their jobs, lose health insurance, be born with a pre-existing condition, be born into a poor family, be unable to find a job after college, etc. I may be unlikely to fall into that category, but a large number of individuals unquestionably will. Few support public policies such us this for their own good; we do it for the larger population. So the question is not about the risk of you needing ACA versus perceived loss of liberty, but the unquestionable number of citizens who benefit from it versus a cost to...and that you'll have to explain the cost a bit better, I'm afraid. "Liberty" doesn't mean much on its own. This quote seems to hint at what you mean, but it's not specific enough:
Which freedoms are you talking about? Do you mean the freedom from any and all taxes (feel free to treat ACA as a tax - the purpose of the requirement is after all for you to pay into the pot so others can receive health care)? Or freedom only from certain types of taxes, and if so, which ones? Do you believe government should be involved in any form of infrastructure investment or regulation? If so, what makes taxation for roads, bridges, standardization, financial guarantees, education, etc. different from taxation for health care?
Or do you mean the freedom for the rich to purchase better health care than the poor, the young, and the sick? To me, "liberty" encompasses the freedom to access basic human needs (of which I include health care - which is to say I think "basic human needs" changes with technology and as our ability to improve standards of living increases) regardless of what family we were born into, how much wealth we have, etc. Government isn't the only institution or social structure capable of infringing upon basic human rights, and one of the key classically-liberal functions of government is to prevent groups from limiting the freedom of individuals. Do you in principle disagree with that view, or is it simply that you have a more narrow view of individual liberty apart from government or otherwise believe government is the only major actor that limits individual freedom?
Well shit.
I honestly appreciate you jumping into the neogaf fire, but your posts have left many (myself included) unsure about which "individual liberties" you think are infringed upon by guaranteed health care. Moreover, you've mentioned a number of times that expanding government power is often, but not always, an extreme negative (government regulation of financial institutions is okay, your government job is okay, etc), but you haven't fully conveyed what sorts of government powers are okay and which are unacceptable, i.e., where your bright-line is. I'd like to better illuminate the arguments on your side by avoiding broad terms like liberty and instead describing what we mean by it. Perhaps we can even agree about certain types of health care regulation. I hope you'll excuse the barrage of questions. I'll start with basic ones that you'll likely think you've already answered, but I think it's necessary to have it all in one place in order to fully understand your position, which I have no doubt is based in a desire to maximize liberty.
Do you support guaranteed healthcare for children? E.g., if a 7 year old develops leukemia, do you think they should be guaranteed service regardless of a guardian's ability to pay?
Do you support insurance companies' rights to deny coverage or charge unaffordable prices to those with pre-existing conditions? What if someone lives in a high-carcinogen environment and develops recurring cancers? Should that person have no access or capped access to health care payment if they weren't extremely wealthy before diagnosis?
Since 1986, hospitals are required to treat anyone seeking emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay. Do you oppose this regulation, and if not, which explicit government powers does it create that you find objectionable, why, and how do they effect citizenry at large. If you support the policy, which government enforcement powers created by the Affordable Care Act do you find distinct from those created in '86, why, and how do they affect you differently?
An extreme example: imagine a new virus that only affects children under the age of 10, spreads quickly over the air, and kills greater than 95% of affected children. Imagine we can only produce enough vaccines for 50% of the population. Do you believe they should be distributed randomly, perhaps by focusing on areas with the highest infection rates, or do you believe the market should solely dictate rationing? I.e., do you believe billionaires should be able to guarantee their children receive the vaccine and poor, uninsured children should only have access when those that can afford it get first dibs? Should government play any role at all during such a catastrophe? If not, do you think private enterprise can be as effective at dealing with national or international health care emergencies?
Karsticles said:
Does it just come down to the state gaining more knowledge about its citizenry that might be used for future illicit operations? If you could somehow (without conceding that such a policy is possible in reality) know that the information could not be abused by the government, would you still oppose the regulation, and if so on what grounds?
Karsticles said:
My support for ACA isn't based on personal need. I can afford high quality health care, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. I support it because some percentage of the 300 million US citizens will unexpected become ill, lose their jobs, lose health insurance, be born with a pre-existing condition, be born into a poor family, be unable to find a job after college, etc. I may be unlikely to fall into that category, but a large number of individuals unquestionably will. Few support public policies such us this for their own good; we do it for the larger population. So the question is not about the risk of you needing ACA versus perceived loss of liberty, but the unquestionable number of citizens who benefit from it versus a cost to...and that you'll have to explain the cost a bit better, I'm afraid. "Liberty" doesn't mean much on its own. This quote seems to hint at what you mean, but it's not specific enough:
Karsticles said:
Which freedoms are you talking about? Do you mean the freedom from any and all taxes (feel free to treat ACA as a tax - the purpose of the requirement is after all for you to pay into the pot so others can receive health care)? Or freedom only from certain types of taxes, and if so, which ones? Do you believe government should be involved in any form of infrastructure investment or regulation? If so, what makes taxation for roads, bridges, standardization, financial guarantees, education, etc. different from taxation for health care?
Or do you mean the freedom for the rich to purchase better health care than the poor, the young, and the sick? To me, "liberty" encompasses the freedom to access basic human needs (of which I include health care - which is to say I think "basic human needs" changes with technology and as our ability to improve standards of living increases) regardless of what family we were born into, how much wealth we have, etc. Government isn't the only institution or social structure capable of infringing upon basic human rights, and one of the key classically-liberal functions of government is to prevent groups from limiting the freedom of individuals. Do you in principle disagree with that view, or is it simply that you have a more narrow view of individual liberty apart from government or otherwise believe government is the only major actor that limits individual freedom?
Well shit.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
jesus titty fucking christ, how old are you?!
here are the odds of something fatal happening to you, either by accident or by illness or whatever, at some point in your life : 100%
myself, at 37, after a couple of health scares, and a whole host of friends having various treatments (we are into double figures for cancer treatment alone, post 35 years old) simply can't understand how people repeatedly ignore the warnings.
Humans are shite at mid-to-long term thinking. statements like "i don't think it's likely something fatal is going to happen to me" is so far beyond fucking stupid that if you can't see WHY it's fucking stupid then there's no help for you.
... grow the fuck up. I doubt anyone gives a fuck about your boring fucking life enough to report it to the government. Fuck me.
you don't live under the delusion that you are free, right? You aren't free -at all-. You can't put into your body what you want because the state mandates that certain substances are illegal, you can't ride a bike with out a helmet, you have to wear a seatbelt when you drive, you can't drink until your 21 .... Americans DON'T HAVE freedom, you have a regulated medium that suits the majority and for the most part it works. Hell, if you hate your fucking life so much - it's even illegal to kill yourself. Where's the freedom there?
The time to start moaning about your freedom being curtailed has long past. We are at the point of arguing whether what the government is doing is good for the masses or not because the "freedom" angle is a load of fucking horseshit.
Some members of my family are made physically ill by the thought that some dirty minority gets to use the same hospital as they do. Not to mention the fact that they have to pay for it with their own job, while the illegal immigrant sits on their ass and collects welfare (and get two ballets).
:|
:|
Rhomega Beta
Member
Yes he was. He was a king, and not just that, but the king of kings.
Outstanding.
Don't try telling them that. I almost think they'd rather have no insurance at all than what they're convinced is insurance tainted by commies.
I do my best in keeping my distance from them, generally.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll