Knights & Knaves Alehouse

What's this with rapists? Yes, "bad" people get health care under national health care like "good" people do. However, "good" people get health care under national health care unlike many "good" people do today. The benefits of that, IMO, far outweigh the negatives that exist under any system. I don't believe in denying a good to people just because a few "undeserving" benefit as well. I believe in dealing with difficult situations after dealing with the easy ones: and national health care for "good" people is an easy one for me.

Let's see if we can make some statements and talk about that, instead of talking about how we feel when women get raped (as if that was a real question).

1. Rationing already exists without national health care through lack of access and denial and delay of services. Every tried to get health insurance when you have an existing condition? Good luck!
2. Criminals already receive treatment without national health care.
3. Those who receive treatment under the current situation receive the absolute minimum quality and quantity of service for their dollar as demonstrated by our poor health situation nationally and the amount of money we already spend in the system. Were we receiving better quality and quantity of health care we would be paying less and be healthier as a nation.
4. Citizens already pay for those without health care via network externalities. The costs associated with the uninsured are passed on to the insured.
5. 1st world countries with national health care have healthier citizens at a lower cost per citizen. That's the best health care system: the one with good service and good quality because the results are what determine the value of a system. What we've got now is only good if one is rich and willing to pay: everyone else would be better off in another country.
6. More people go bankrupt by health care reasons than for any other reason. Again, bankruptcies are a negative eternality that is borne by those who don't go bankrupt.

joe b.

AxeMental wrote:What the hell is wrong with you liberals.

Conservatives?

I'm getting damn close to not responding to you, again. Stop the blanket attacks against "TEH LIBRULS!!!"

I'm a LIBERAL and fucking proud of it.

joe b.

JDJarvis wrote:

AxeMental wrote:... and its not a game.

No it's not a game. I know damn well what you are talking about, not only have friends and loved ones been raped but I've been sexually assaulted. I just have the sense not to leave it up to a petty bureaucrat to determine who can live or die. Isn't that why you are talking about public health care rationing?

I'm very sorry to hear that. I too have close family effected, so I know what you mean. They still cope...and it lasts a life time. Thts why I think repeat rapists should be put to death...the toll on families and victims is simply too great, and the cost is too great to keep them locked up for life.

Look, I'm not for a picking and choosing system either, but rather broad policy. When the hospital has the criminal record of the injured person (he's a violent criminal, and he's already been in the hospital for 3 other gun shot wounds (or whatever cut off point is applicable). At that point violent criminal gets less service then you or I would walking off the street (perhaps limiting him to the type of surgery). Such a policy would save alot of money for those who really need it. The biggest problem with attempting this is that the medical community wouldn't go along with it. Doctors are oathed to do everything they can to save life regardless of who it is.


As far as determining the death penalty, that needs to be done in a court of law (and not by a petty bureaucrat) in that I think we agree. But thats not what I'm talking about at all.

AxeMental wrote:Anyhow, we just can't afford it as a society anymore, it costs too much. And its going to effect the ability of people who are not criminals from getting good health coverage.

Criminals are making it more difficult for good people to get health coverage? If by criminals you mean businesses, I agree. Call up some "health care providers" and say you have diabetes and see what response you get for coverage. God forbid you say something more serious like MS or cystic fibrosis. Try doing this outside the "insurance through the company you work for" model that's been adopted by our businesses as a way to reduce overhead by transferring real payment for labor to companies designed to prevent the reception of such payment. All the while buying stock in those insurance companies to increase the bottom line even more.

Insurance companies only want to not pay. That is their only goal, that is the only way they stay in business, that is the only way they make money for their shareholders, that is the only way in which they can create a float used for divergent investments. Insurance companies only try to not pay. They're like the terminator: They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop trying to deny service, ever, until you stop being a liability by actually trying to use their services as sold.

Insurance companies only make money by providing NO SERVICE to the majority of their customers.

The country needs healthy citizens because the individual needs health to work and invent and fight to support the country. Tying a profit margin to a lack of service is how you end up with a country that pays more than other countries for less service and sicker citizens. The profit margin of an insurance company is a blatant conflict of interest between the goals of the country/individual and the goals of a business.

The way you speak of business and think of it seem to me to indicate you've never been inside, watching how decisions are made, and for what reasons. I've been inside a company in the insurance industry, just under the VP, in fact.

Obfuscate, reduce, prevent, deny, contest, cancel: this is how insurance makes money in this country. I'm leaving out fraud, lie, cover up, and alter only because they're technically illegal, but you better believe they belong on that list as well.

joe b.

Some interesting insites Joe. Yes, your correct, I've never worked in a large company before.

Pre-existing conditions is a huge problem your right. And so is the way the insurance companies function. Whats needed is the government holding their feet to the fire, transparancy etc. to make sure they pay up. But, I don't expect that will happen anytime soon.

The whole "cost of treating criminals" bit seems like a desperate distraction, but let's note the fundamental premise: not enough to go around. The real New Right dodge is getting people to accept scarcity as not merely normal but good, along with an entitlement among the "haves."

It's hard for me to retain sympathy even for actually sensible arguments when they're presented in the service of the reprehensible. Reprehensible is how I find these past decades of talk of theoretical freedom to justify actual servitude, of talk of "Christian morality" to justify tearing down the moral foundations of society. The Reaganistas and their successors have done in my view great harm.

"Government doesn't work, as we demonstrate more fully each time you elect us to office!"

======

We could even buy that line and go the roundabout way of creating new organizations to get things done instead of using the state tools at hand. The stumbling block is ...

"The government" would still be working for the special interests against us. Accepting the false dichotomy leaves us under the same masters either way.

We are the government, of the People, by the People and for the People. That's the American way.

This is also interesting

So a built in stage 2 coming right up.

Please... God... let this government collapse under the weight of its own crap before too many people die.

Comrad Semaj, the Fed govt. will collapse only when people start refusing to pay taxes (fat chance) or when there are no taxes left to collect. Anyhow whats the problem, don't you like Obama's promised "change"? You have to admit he is bringing it.

If you own firearms, I suggest you start thinking about where to hide them.

Semaj Khan wrote:Please... God... let this government collapse under the weight of its own crap before too many people die.

Do you really think that, Semaj? Although I bitch and complain like any other American I'm happy that I'm lucky enough to live where I do and when I do. Given an adequate knowledge of history and the cruelty that is the nature of man, I am hard pressed to think of the US as a force that is not more for good than for evil, warts and all. If I didn't like the old lady I wouldn't bitch nearly as much as I do: I'd find a way out, by hook or by crook.

joe b.

Bloomberg, Newsmax ... are there no more real journalists?

When that's what passes for reporting, when it's what people cite as a basis for discussing public policy, we are really up the creek!

That's not a special knock against one brand of propaganda. Democratic, Green, Presbyterian, Poultry Processing Association, whatever -- all have an agenda that sets "the Truth" above the facts. That has its place, but not as a wholesale replacement for more careful investigation.

jgbrowning wrote:

Semaj Khan wrote:Please... God... let this government collapse under the weight of its own crap before too many people die.

Do you really think that, Semaj? Although I bitch and complain like any other American I'm happy that I'm lucky enough to live where I do and when I do. Given an adequate knowledge of history and the cruelty that is the nature of man, I am hard pressed to think of the US as a force that is not more for good than for evil, warts and all. If I didn't like the old lady I wouldn't bitch nearly as much as I do: I'd find a way out, by hook or by crook.

joe b.

Yeah, Joe... unfortunately I do, and I don't enter into such a mindset lightly.

I served the US government faithfully for years... spooked for her, fought for her and killed for her. I've slept in some shit holes in her service just to spread Truth, Justice and the American Way... and I'm not being maudlin or melodramatic in the least about that.

I know the score... or at least I have a darn good clue. Details are neither germane to this board nor would I go into them, but many of us saw things coming back in the 90s that gave us chills... and it's one reason I went out the exit door and never looked back. Nothing that happened under the Bush regime surprised me; nothing happening now does that much either.

The best we can hope for is governmental collapse in DC followed by a couple of years of near-anarchy followed by a more sensible system more like the one that started fading away after Jackson left office. Pipe dream? Yeah, maybe... but considering how many neo-revolutionaries trained on Uncle Sam's dime and hardened in the heat of the Middle East are sitting at home now watching the same things you see on TV, I don't think it's that far-fetched.

Remember, the British Parliament didn't see it coming either in 1775.

Semaj Khan wrote:Yeah, Joe... unfortunately I do, and I don't enter into such a mindset lightly.

Well, I'm sorry to hear it. Everyone's got a point where they think letting it all fail is better than trying to fix it, but as I haven't got to that point in this matter, I can't help but think it unpleasant.

joe b.

Dwayanu wrote:Bloomberg, Newsmax ... are there no more real journalists?

When that's what passes for reporting, when it's what people cite as a basis for discussing public policy, we are really up the creek!

That's not a special knock against one brand of propaganda. Democratic, Green, Presbyterian, Poultry Processing Association, whatever -- all have an agenda that sets "the Truth" above the facts.

::scratches head::

I thought that article was a lot better than most, in that it actually linked to a copy of the legislation in question and cited page numbers that you can refer to. That goes WAY beyond most reporting and opinion pieces that I come across. Even if you disagree with the opinions, or you question the presentation of the facts, at least the article makes it very easy to take a look at the source material, yourself.

AxeMental wrote:Comrad Semaj, the Fed govt. will collapse only when people start refusing to pay taxes (fat chance) or when there are no taxes left to collect. Anyhow whats the problem, don't you like Obama's promised "change"? You have to admit he is bringing it.

Taxes don't solve every problem... especially those that have festered for so long that we can't spend our way out of the thicket.

I didn't like his flavor of change when he was campaigning... didn't like McCain's either. I tried to get people around here to vote for Paul, but too many saw this election as some sort of horse race... vote for the winner. They got surprised too.

If you own firearms, I suggest you start thinking about where to hide them.

Right now, I don't subscribe to the concept of governmental round up of fire arms, nor do I subscribe to the old REX84 blueprint for rounding up dissedents in case of civil unrest. Neither are logistically feasible. In the first point, there's simply not enough personnel... military or civilian to pull it off nor do they really want to try it. For example, my local sheriff's office is fully aware that the first one to come through my front door without a warrant gets a lead salad... mainly because I've made it clear to them. And they're cool with that.

In the second point, since the bulk of the population are in cities, it would be easier to simply seal them off and let the problem take care of itself rather than imprison, feed and care for literally millions of agitated people in camps.

In my experience, the federal government, in the face of full scale anarchy, would slowly fall to pieces sort of like when Sylvester the Cat saw that panther... and I think they know it too.