Universal vs. Market-Based Health Care

[smelter]

Actually, you missed the point. Wy am I not surprised?

In the kinds of cases under discussion, lawyers take them on a contingency basis - their pay is a percentage of what they win. The client pays nothing.

You're right! However in my defense, since most of your posts are pointless, I never thought to look for one.

 

[HenryReardon]

You're right! However in my defense, since most of your posts are pointless, I never thought to look for one.

It's a bit early in the day for baiting and gratuitous insults, isn't it?

 

[smelter]

It's a bit early in the day for baiting and gratuitous insults, isn't it?

Henry, you're just no fun anymore!

OK, you win ..... I'll stop!

 

[Kulindahr]

Not being able to afford the racket or the services/products because of said racket is not a choice, Kul. Many people are involuntarily excluded.

That could be said of many aspects of market forces. And yes, this is a market force, because people have gotten together to offer a "service", and others have used it, and no one twisted their arms.

Many people are involuntarily excluded from getting new undies on sale at Target because others got there first, too, but is that a "scam"?

 

[Kulindahr]

Our founding documents are a pact in which we commit ourselves as citizens to the common defense. Disease is an attack on the nation.

That's reaching so far it's over the cliff.

That kind of reasoning would allow the government to do anything, anything at all -- just decide that something is an "attack on the nation".

Did you bother to stop and ask who's doing the attacking? "Common defense" means there's someone throwing the disease at us, someone who can be fought.

 

[Kurn]

That's reaching so far it's over the cliff.

That kind of reasoning would allow the government to do anything, anything at all -- just decide that something is an "attack on the nation".

Did you bother to stop and ask who's doing the attacking? "Common defense" means there's someone throwing the disease at us, someone who can be fought.

Kuli, this is back-seat reasoning that is not worthy of an American such as yourself.

WE are the Government. Vicariously, we, all of us, are in Iraq and other places. WE demand intelligence and success--or we lose.

 

[Kulindahr]

The consequences of said event is what is the problem now. How is it a market force? There is an intercessor between buyer and seller, one who is providing a heavy cost burden on BOTH the buyer and the seller (consider how much the health services cost per capita in the US compared to other countries with universal health approaches, in fact the comparisons of quality and of quantity has the US far from on top). Actually, two intercessors, because the government plays a role on buyer, seller, and insurance providers.

No one dies without underwear bought from Target. There is actual price competition and supply and demand for that; health care and the health insurance racket are totally different.

It's all freely done by individuals, so it's a market force. The market does not require rational decisions, only free decisions.

That's what's so bad about Obama's concept: then it will be a protection racket, because if you don't participate, there will be men with guns to teach you a lesson.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli, this is back-seat reasoning that is not worthy of an American such as yourself.

WE are the Government. Vicariously, we, all of us, are in Iraq and other places. WE demand intelligence and success--or we lose.

We are the government only in the way that Americans were the government before the Revolution: if we care to, we can rise up and change things. But the real government at the moments is the bureaucracy, the unelected asses in chairs whose main interest is justifying their own jobs.

"We are the government" is nice in theory -- but any more, it's just theory; if it were true, Congress wouldn't have such a low approval rating. And with both parties determinedly adding bricks to the foundation of a police state, I don't think that us being the government in practice is going to be the case any time soon.

 

[Kulindahr]

WE are the Government. Vicariously, we, all of us, are in Iraq and other places. WE demand intelligence and success--or we lose.

I'm only vicariously in Iraq because there are men with guns waiting to come for me if I don't "do my part".

 

[opinterph]

I’m curious. How does covering persons over the age of 18 “destroy our health care system?”

 

[bankside]

Why just the under-18's? What is the problem with universal? A certain number of people need to suffer without healthcare in order for you to be satisfied with your own healthcare? The minute everyone has healthcare then the system has failed?

 

[Kulindahr]

Why just the under-18's? What is the problem with universal? A certain number of people need to suffer without healthcare in order for you to be satisfied with your own healthcare? The minute everyone has healthcare then the system has failed?

Maybe because once you're 18 you ought to be an adult and take responsibility for yourself?

 

[bankside]

I have two objections to that (at least.)

First, how does a 17 year old with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis become a self-supporting employed person with healthcare benefits on their 18th birthday?

Second, what if the most responsible course of action for anyone over the age of 18 is to realise that healthcare is so important that we have to look out for each other, and share responsibility for all those multitude occasions where leaving a person to fend for him or herself will neither be ethical, nor successful in ensuring that everyone has healthcare.

Third, how does any 17 year old become a self-supporting employed person with healthcare benefits on their 18th birthday? (see, I told you I had at least two objections...)

 

[justapixel]

I have two objections to that (at least.)

First, how does a 17 year old with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis become a self-supporting employed person with healthcare benefits on their 18th birthday?

Second, what if the most responsible course of action for anyone over the age of 18 is to realise that healthcare is so important that we have to look out for each other, and share responsibility for all those multitude occasions where leaving a person to fend for him or herself will neither be ethical, nor successful in ensuring that everyone has healthcare.

Third, how does any 17 year old become a self-supporting employed person with healthcare benefits on their 18th birthday? (see, I told you I had at least two objections...)

1)he gets a job with health benefits.
2)I have no idea what you are saying.
3)he gets a job with health benefits.

 

[bankside]

1) How does someone with Amytrophic Lateral Sclerosis get a job with health benefits if they don't happen to have Stephen Hawking's knack for math?

2) I'm saying yet again: Being a responsible adult means voting for and establishing universal healthcare, where the patient does not pay out of pocket when they should be getting well.

3) How do they get the same quality of health care if they don't manage to find a job with health benefits until they are 21 or 22?

 

[Kulindahr]

2) I'm saying yet again: Being a responsible adult means voting for and establishing universal healthcare, where the patient does not pay out of pocket when they should be getting well.

I know what you're saying: you're saying that people who don't agree with your beliefs should be coerced into doing so at the point of a gun.

You find me a method of providing universal health care without that, and I'll sign on. Until then, all you're saying is that the side with more people on it gets a license to rob the others.

Until then, how about those who want universal health care sign up to pay for it?

 

[Kulindahr]

1)he gets a job with health benefits.
2)I have no idea what you are saying.
3)he gets a job with health benefits.

Apparently you have no idea what he was saying in point #1, either.
I'm not even sure you have any idea what he was saying in #3, given your answer.

 

[bankside]

I know what you're saying: you're saying that people who don't agree with your beliefs should be coerced into doing so at the point of a gun.

You find me a method of providing universal health care without that, and I'll sign on. Until then, all you're saying is that the side with more people on it gets a license to rob the others.

Yes - first we'll make you register your car, then you'll need a license for your dog, then the army comes to town and frogmarches people down to the hospital for their annual general medical...

Until then, how about those who want universal health care sign up to pay for it?

Given the meaning of the word "universal," how about those who want universal health care sign up and vote for it. Kulindahr prefers an approach that lies at the intersection of anarchy and libertarianism, and all I can say to that is that democracy has a legitimate place in the world, and not every majority decision is an act of oppression. I just don't buy it. I'm getting out my tiny violin.

Oh! There's a smiley for that!